JUDGMENT
M.C. Jain, J.
1. Two persons are facing these contempt proceedings. They are O.P.S. Malik and S.N. Pandey.
2. It would be appropriate to have a resume of the background. The contempt proceedings came to be initiated with regard to the alleged deliberate and contemptuous act of the two opposite parties named above in showing utter disregard and committing violation and disobedience of order dated 16.3.1993 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 (subsequently numbered as 8531 of 1993) filed by the petitioner Naresh Chandra Kapoor. The dispute pertained to the release of certain accommodation owned by the petitioner-landlord which was in occupation of a tenant, namely, Smt. Sayeeda Farooqui on the ground of bonajide requirement of the landlord. S.C.C. Suit No. 19 of 1982 for eviction of the tenant filed by the petitioner had already been decreed by the J.S.C.C. and Revision No. 325 of 1985 against the order decreeing the suit was pending before the revisional court. The petitioner also filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the release of the property, i.e.. House No. 12/24, Hastings Road (Nyay Marg), Allahabad. Contemner No. l O.P.S. Malik, an I.P.S. Officer, was also interested in getting the premises in question allotted in his favour in connivance with contemner No. 2–S.N. Pandey, Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 8531 of 1993. On 16.3.1993, this Court while staying the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, issued notices to the respondents directing for service on the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 of the writ petition out of court also, apart from normal mode of service. 19.4.1993 was fixed. It is this order which is said to have been violated by the contemners. Proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the petitioner.
3. There are three charges framed against O.P. No. l O.P.S. Malik on the basis of the allegations put forth by the petitioner. They are as follows:
1. That, you, O.P.S. Malik, on 16.3.1993 at about 7 p.m. when the applicant/petitioner alongwith his son went to serve the certified copy of this Court’s order dated 16.3.1993, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993, at the residence of opposite party No. 2, situate in Collectorate Compound, Allahabad, you were present there and you took the copy of the order from the applicant/petitioner and after seeing the same returned the same back to him with abusive language directed against him as also the Hon’ble Judges of this Court by uttering the words: Main Yeh Bangla Chhorunga Nahin Chahe Jo Bhi Mujhe Iske Liye Kama Pare. High Court Ke Judge Sale To Andhe Main. Stay Order Dena Unke Liye Majak Hat, Kiske KhilaJ Order De Rahe Hai, Yeh Bhi NaMn Dekhte. Yahan Se Bhag Jao Nahin To Saale Andar Kar Dunga.
By your such act and conduct showing utter disregard to the order of this Court and uttering abusive language, you intentionally and wilfully committed violation of the order of this Court, scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court and obstructed the administration of justice.
2. That you O.P.S. Malik, on 18.3.1993, when the applicant/petitioner again went with two advocate witnesses to serve on you the copy of the notices, writ petition etc., you refused to accept the notices and copies of the writ petition and application and returned back the same to the applicant/ petitioner and thereby you wilfully and intentionally committed gross contempt of the order of this Court.
3. That you, O.P.S. Malik, despite knowledge of the stay order of this Court dated 16.3.1993, in connivance with opposite party No. 2, namely, S.N. Pandey, Rent Control and Eviction Officer, got allotted the premises in question in your favour and entered into the possession of the said premises No. 12/24, Hastings Road (Nyay Marg), Allahabad and thereby you intentionally and wilfully committed gross contempt of the order of this Court.
4. The charge framed against contemner No. 2–S.N. Pandey is to the following effect:
(1) That you S.N. Pandey, on 16.3.1993 at about 7 p.m. when the applicant/petitioner alongwith his son went to serve the certified copy of this Court’s order dated 16.3.1993, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Ml of 1993, at your residence, situate in Collectorate Compound Allahabad, you took the copy of the order from the applicant/petitioner and after seeing the same returned back saying that the same be filed in Court on the next day and on the next day (17.3.1993) when the applicant/petitioner went to your court/office to serve the certified copy of the order of this Court dated 16.3.1993 aforesaid, you intentionally and wilfully did not come to your court/office. Despite the knowledge of the stay order dated 16.3.1993, passed by this Court, you S.N. Pandey, as Rent Control and Eviction Officer, in connivance with opposite party No. 1, namely, O.P.S. Malik, allotted the premises in question (House No. 12/24, Hastings Road (Nyay Marg), Allahabad) in favour of O.P.S. Malik aforesaid secretly without hearing the applicant, even after the passing of the stay order of this Court dated 16.3.1993, and thereby you committed judicial impropriety and intentionally and wilfully violated and disobeyed the order of the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court and obstructed the administration of justice.
5. Subsequent to the framing of charges this Court required the two contemners to file their reply/counter- affidavits to the charges, also asking the petitioner/applicant to file rejoinder-affidavit within two weeks thereafter.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
7. In reply to the charges framed, both the contemners filed counter- affidavits denying the allegations against them.
8. Opposite party No. 1 O.P.S. Malik averred that he is a law abiding citizen and a senior I.P.S. Officer, fully aware of his duties and responsibilities including to obey and execute the orders passed by the Courts of law. He has great respect and regard in the Courts of law. It has also been averred in paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit of the opposite party No. l O.P.S. Malik that in pursuance of an order passed by this Court on 25.10.20O4, he has vacated the premises in his possession on 19.12.2004 within the stipulated period and also tendered to the petitioner the balance of increased rent/damages from Rs. 500 to Rs. 3,500 per month amounting to Rs. 4,23,350 after deducting the amount already deposited In Court fixed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but the petitioner refused it at that time on the ground that he had not obtained the possession of the outhouses. On an application moved by the petitioner, this Court had been pleased to pass an order on 21.10.2005, observing that “for nondelivery of possession of out-houses, no liability can be fixed upon the tenant-petitioner Sri O.P.S. Malik.” Photostat copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the counter-affidavit. As per paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit, the petitioner demanded the entire amount of rent at the flat rate of Rs. 3,500 per month (without deducting the deposited amount), amounting to Rs. 4,97,000 which has been paid by him through demand draft No. 0430624346 dated 28.1.2006, in full and final settlement of the dues. Photostat copy of the receipt has been annexed as Anenxure-7 to the counter-affidavit.
9. It appears from perusal of Annexure-6 to the counter-affidavit filed by contemner No. 1 that another Writ Petition No. 21874 of 2001 was fought between the parties. The grievance of the petitioner/landlord was that he had not been given possession of out-houses. Separate orders on 23.2.2005 and 3.5.2005, in respect of servant quarters/outhouses had been passed by this Court. The orders passed by this Court in respect of out-houses residents had been affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.5.2005, in Special Leave Petition Nos. 11110-11112 of 2005 filed by the residents of outhouses, i.e., Kalloo and others. This Court observed in order dated 21.10.2005, that for non-delivery of possession of out-houses no liability can be fixed upon the tenant-petitioner O.P.S. Malik. Annexure-7 is the receipt of Rs. 4,97,000 paid by O.P.S. Malik to the petitioner-landlord through Bank draft No. 0430624346 dated 28.1.2006 in full and final settlement of the dues as per the order dated 25.10.2004 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21874 of 2001. Thus, the opposite party No. 1 denying the allegations of the petitioner and putting forth the related backdrop, has prayed for dismissal of the contempt petition and dropping of the charges against him.
10. Likewise, opposite party No. 2 S.N. Pandey has also filed a counter-affidavit dated 6.2.2006, subsequent to the framing of charges denying the allegations levelled against him.
11. The petitioner Naresh Chandra Kapoor has made an application No. 26551 of 2006 with a prayer to dismiss the contempt petition. An affidavit has been filed to back this application in which it has been averred that he is aged about 76 years and has been suffering from ailment of heart and spondylitis for the last several years. He has become weak and is incapable of undertaking or continuing any litigation.
12. It is obvious that instead of joining the issue by means of rejoinder-affidavit (for the decision of the controversy sparked by him) as to the averments made in the counter- affidavits of opposite parties No. 1 and 2, he (petitioner) has dragged his feet back. Needless to say, contempt jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and for maintaining the authority of law as is administered in Courts. It cannot be used to satisfy the private grudge of a litigant or as a tool in nailing one’s opponent by creating pressure in one form or the other. In the present case, the petitioner did not care or dare to file rejoinder-affidavit to rebut the assertions made by the two contemners in their counter-affidavits by reiterating his earlier allegations and averments on the basis of which the contempt proceedings were initiated which, in due course, culminated into the framing of charges against the two contemners. There is no denial of this fact either that he has been delivered possession of the property which was in occupation of opposite party No. 1 and that he (petitioner) has also received from him a sum of Rs. 4,97,000 through bank draft dated 28.1.2006. It cannot be gainsaid that he invoked the contempt Jurisdiction of this Court for ulterior motive and to achieve his purpose to create pressure on his adversary. Without any regard for the majesty of law, the Courts and the Judges manning the system, he imputed malignity of the whole set of Judges of this Court at the hands of the opposite party No. 1 by even putting abusive words in his mouth unworthy to be uttered in civilized society against anyone, let alone the Judges of the High Court. He made a farce of the judicial system and ridiculed it by tinkering with due process of law. It is sad and bad that he tampered with the judicial process without any qualms of conscience. The reason assigned by him (that he is aged about 76 years and has been suffering from ailment of heart and spondylitis for the last several years) is wholly specious and imaginary, simply advanced as a lame excuse to cover his misdeed of invoking the contempt jurisdiction without any justifiable cause. He not only subjected the opposite parties to extreme anxiety and mental trauma during the pendency of these contempt proceedings but also made mockery of the judicial system, apart from wasting the precious time of this Court. The course adopted by the petitioner is highly deprecatory and has to be curbed with strong hands. It is a fit case, where while dismissing the contempt petition, exemplary cost must be imposed on the petitioner.
13. In view of the above discussion, I exonerate the opposite parties, namely, O.P.S. Malik and S.N. Pandey of the contempt charges framed against them and dismiss the contempt petition, imposing special costs of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. twenty five thousand only) on the petitioner. The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioner (Naresh Chandra Kapoor, son of late Vishambhar Nath Kapoor, resident of 444, Malviya Nagar, Allahabad) with the High Court Legal Service Committee, High Court, Allahabad, within one month from today. In case of default on his part in depositing the said amount, it shall be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, also on the expiry of one month in the eventuality of petitioner’s failure to deposit the costs of Rs. 25,000. The matter be listed before this Court on 22.9.2006, to oversee the compliance of this order.