(Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.)
Miscellaneous Application No. 1073/2021 in MA 617/2021 in MA 2200/2020 in MA 1435/2020 in SMC(Crl) No. 2/2019, decided on July 16, 2021
In Re Vijay S. Kurle and Others ______________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
______________________________________________ Respondent.
(For Admission and IA No. 77035/2021-Extension of Time IA No. 80813/2021 – Extension of Time)
Item No. 31
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 1377/2020
(IA No. 64425/2021 – Early Hearing Application
IA No. 64427/2021 – Exemption From Filing Affidavit)
Item No. 33
Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 243/2020
With
W.P. (Crl.) No. 244/2020 (X)
(For Admission)
Miscellaneous Application No. 1073/2021; MA 617/2021; MA 2200/2020; MA 1435/2020; SMC(Crl) No. 2/2019; IA No. 77035/2021; IA No. 80813/2021; Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 1377/2020; IA No. 64425/2021; IA No. 64427/2021; Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 243/2020; and W.P. (Crl.) No. 244/2020 (X)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. In Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2019, three persons namely Vijay S. Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh C. Ojha were found guilty of contempt vide judgment dated 27.04.2020 passed by this Court.
2. The matter was then listed for considering what appropriate punishment was required to be awarded to the contemnors. By Order dated 04.05.2020 said three contemnors were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three months with imposition of fine of Rs. 2,000/- and were directed to surrender before the Secretary General of this Court. However, considering the effects of Covid-19 Pandemic, the contemnors were granted time of sixteen weeks to surrender.
3. Thereafter, certain applications including those seeking recall of the order dated 27.04.2020 came up before this Court which did not consider it appropriate to recall the order dated 27.4.2020. However, by its successive orders dated 18.08.2020, 03.09.2020, 11.12.2020 and 15.04.2021, the time to surrender in terms of order dated 04.05.2020 was repeatedly extended and the time granted by the last order dated 15.4.2021 is to expire today.
4. Yesterday, when the matters came up before us, a prayer was made that Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 243, 244 and Writ Petition (C) No. 1377 of 2020 had been filed by these three contemnors on the lines identical to pending Writ Petition (C) No. 1053 of 2020. It was, therefore, directed yesterday that the instant Suo Motu Contempt Petition and applications arising therefrom along with said three writ petitions preferred by the contemnors be listed before an appropriate Court.
5. Accordingly, the matters are listed before us today.
6. We have been apprised of the contents of Writ Petition (C) No. 1053 of 2020. In that case, the contemnor was sentenced on a charge of criminal contempt and Writ Petition (C) No. 1053 of 2020 prays:
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that a person convicted for criminal contempt by this Hon’ble Court, including the petitioner herein, would have a right to an intra-court appeal to be heard by a larger and different bench.
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction framing rules and guidelines providing for intra-court appeal against conviction in original criminal contempt cases as referred in prayer (a.) above. 60
c) Alternatively, issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that review petitions filed against orders of conviction by Supreme Court in original criminal contempt cases would be heard in open court by a different bench;”
7. It appears that Review Petition No. 326 of 2020, arising from the judgment and order holding said contemnor guilty, came up before a Bench of three Judges of this Court. It took note of the assertions made in Interim Application No. 131968 of 2020 filed by said contemnor praying that consideration of Review Petition be deferred till Writ Petition (C) No. 1053 of 2020 was heard/adjudicated upon by this Court and accordingly by its order dated 16.12.2020 this Court adjourned the Review Petition.
8. It further appears that Writ Petition (C) No. 1053 of 2020 has not come up before this Court for consideration.
9. Coming back to the writ petitions filed by the instant contemnors, various prayers have been made in the writ petitions but Mr. Tanveer Nizam, learned advocate appearing for Rashid Khan Pathan, Mr. Partho Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for Vijay S. Kurle and Nilesh C. Ojha, Contemnor appearing in-person have readily submitted that except the prayers identical to those made in Writ Petition (C) No. 1053 of 2020, rest of the prayers in the instant Writ Petitions, be allowed to be withdrawn. We record the statements and direct that the prayers in said three Writ Petitions shall be read accordingly.
10. It is also submitted by said learned counsel and the Contemnor-in-person that, if at any stage any allegations or assertions were made against the appointment of, and the conduct of instant matter by Mr. Siddharth Luthra as Amicus Curiae, the Contemnors tender unconditional apology and seek to withdraw such assertions/allegations. The statements are recorded and the apology is accepted.
11. As the issue raised in Writ Petition (C) No. 1053 of 2020, is pending consideration before this Court, these Writ Petitions are directed to be listed along with said Writ Petition (C) No. 1053 of 2020, before the appropriate Court after seeking requisite directions from the Hon’ble CJI.
12. Since the period granted in terms of the order dated 15.04.2021 is to expire today, an extension of one month is granted subject to the following conditions:
(a) The amount of fine as directed in the judgment and order dated 04.05.2020 shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court within seven days.
(b) The Contemnors shall execute individual bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each and send them to the Office of the Secretary General of this Court within seven days.
13. IA No. 80813 of 2021 for extension of time is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of.
———
