Skip to content


Shamshul Hasan Vs. Kuber Nath and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1975CriLJ898
AppellantShamshul Hasan
RespondentKuber Nath and ors.
Excerpt:
- orderhari swarup, j.1. this is a petition for taking action against respondents for having committed contempt of this court. the applicant prays that action be taken under section 10 of the contempt of courts act (hereinafter called the act), which deals with the high court's power to punish for contempt of courts subordinate to it. 'the petition, however, does not disclose ;any order of any court .subordinate to this court which has been disobeyed. the ap-' iplicatiqn under section 10 is thus not maintainable., ' ..2. so far as disobedience of this court's order is concerned, no specific order has been mentioned which might have been disobeyed, an order has, how- ever, been filed as annexure 4 to the affidavit. this order was passed on 13-6-1972 in writ petn. no. 3755 of 1972 (all>.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Hari Swarup, J.

1. This is a petition for taking action against respondents for having committed contempt of this Court. The applicant prays that action be taken under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter called the Act), which deals with the High Court's power to punish for contempt of courts subordinate to it. 'The petition, however, does not disclose ;any order of any court .subordinate to this Court which has been disobeyed. The ap-' iplicatiqn under Section 10 is thus not maintainable., ' ..

2. So far as disobedience of this Court's order is concerned, no specific order has been mentioned which might have been disobeyed, An order has, how- ever, been filed as annexure 4 to the affidavit. This order was passed on 13-6-1972 in Writ Petn. No. 3755 of 1972 (All> (Shabuddin Khan v, Divisional Forest. Officer). Learned Standing Counsel has-pointed out that in this petition the present petitioner was not even a party and no particulars of disobedience have been given. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the order Annexure-1 to the affidavit was-disobeyed, This order was an interim. order passed on 11-11-1971. In this order the petitioner was restrained from cutting: green trees but was permitted to cut dry trees, and the State was restrained from* interfering with such cutting. The special appeal in which this order was passed was dismissed on 5-4-1972 and the-order must be deemed to have come to an end with the final disposal of the special appeal. Thus there is no particular order filed along with this application-which may have been disobeyed. Section 20 of the Act provides that:

No court shall initiate any proceedings foir contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of'a. period of one year from the date on which, the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

In the application and the affidavit file* along with it there is no date mentioned on which contempt may have been committed. Unless the date is brought to the-notice of the Court it cannot be possible-for it to hold that the application has been moved within limitation.' The only' allegation in the petition and the' affidavit is that in spite of clear orders of this Court the petitioner was not allowed to. remove the timber by opposite- parties 1 to 3, The application is so vague that it is not possible from a reading of it to infer that contempt was committed.

3. An application to initiate proceedings for action an the ground that civil contempt has been committed must contain, a copy of the order of the court alleged to have been disobeyed, the date on which it was disobeyed, the manner in which it was disobeyed and the name of the person who disobeyed it. The present application does not contain the required particulars.

4. The application is accordingly dismissed and the notice issued to the respondents is discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //