A.S. Bains, J.
1. Sardar Parkash Singh Badal, respondent (contemner) filed Civil Petition No. 3803 of 1983, in which the State of Haryana, Shri Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister Haryana, Shri Ishwar Chander, Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Haryana and others were respondents. In the aforesaid writ petition, the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeal) dated 27th August, 1982, was impugned along with the orders dated 8th August 1980 and 19th December 1980 passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, Hissar Division respectively, inter alia, on the following allegations :
(i) That the order of the Collector, respondent No. 5 dated 8.8.1980 (Annexure P1) of the Commissioner (respondent No. 4 dated 19.12.1980 (Annexure P3) and that of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), dated 27.8.1982 (Annexure P.5) are apparently erroneous, illegal, arbitrary and have been passed mala fidely at the instance of Shri Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister HaryanaRespondent No. 3.
(ii) JUDGMENTs of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have been passed mala fide at the instance of Shri Bhajan Lal, who defected from the Janata party in 1980 and joined Congress (I). The petitioner is on opposition party of Congress (I) and Shri Bhajan Lal respondent No. 3 is responsible for the mala fide orders passed by respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 5."
The AdvocateGeneral, Haryana, on the basis of the above allegations filed the present contempt petition against the respondent that the aforesaid averments made in the writ petition tantamount to contempt of Court as Shri Ishwar Chander, Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Haryana is a Court as contemplated by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Article 215 of Constitution of India.
2. Notice was issued in this case to the respondent on 18th October, 1982. The respondent has also filed the return, in which it is averred that the answering respondent did not use any expression scandalise, or to lower the authority of any court or to prejudice the due course of any judicial proceedings and that the aforesaid allegations in the writ petition are fully protected under sections 5 and 6 of the Act, because the same are made in good faith.
3. The only question for determination is whether the aforesaid allegations made in the writ petition amount to contempt of the court or made in good faith.
4. In the writ petition, it is averred that the Collector, Surplus Area, Sirsa declared 627 kanals 3 marlas of `C'' category of land with the respondent as surplus on 8th August, 1980 vide his order Annexure P1; that the respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Collector before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, which was dismissed in limine by him on 19th December, 1980 (copy Annexure P.3 to the writ petition); that the respondent filed a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Haryana on 27th August, 1982 (copy Annexure P5 to the writ petition). The respondent also alleged in para 4 of the writ petition that the orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) are apparently erroneous, illegal, arbitrary and have been passed mala fide at the instance of Shri Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister Haryana (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition). Separate returns were filed by Ch. Bhajan Lal, respondent No. 3 himself and by respondent No. 5 on behalf of other respondents including Shri Ishwar Chander, Financial Commissioner (Appeals). Ch. Bhajan Lal in reply to the allegations in para 4 of the writ petition has averred as under :
"The allegations in para 4 of the amended writ petition against the answering respondent No. 3 by petitioner are correct to the extent that the petitioner was the Chief Minister of Punjab and is now Leader of the Opposition of Punjab Vidhan Sabha. It is also correct that the election of the Legislative Assembly, Haryana were held on May 19, 1982. The answering respondent had no knowledge that the petitioner visited several constituencies in Haryana in favour of the opposition candidates, so the question of answering respondent being annoyed with the petitioner "due to the defeat of certain Congress (I) candidates does not arise. It is wholly wrong to suggest that the answering respondent illegally invited to form a ministry by the Governor of Haryana. In fact the answering respondent was unanimously elected leader of the Congress (I) Legislative Party and in his capacity as leader of the said party, the largest single party in the Haryana Legislature, the Governor of Haryana acted in a lawful and constitutional manner, to invite the answering respondent to form the ministry. Further, the answering respondent proved and fully established his majority on the floor of the Vidhan Sabha.
xxx xxx xxx
As regard the newsitems appearing in the Tribune of June 23, 1982, the answering respondent has no comments except that he did not feel any annoyance nor is he aggrieved against the petitioner. It is further submitted that his installation as Chief Minister of Haryana is legally and constitutionally valid. It is also wrong to suggest that the orders of the Collector, Sirsa, Commissioner, Hissar Division and Financial Commissioner (Appeals) were passed at the instance of the answering respondent. It is also incorrect to suggest that any application for vacation of stay "order was filed at his instance. He was not aware of any such application having been filed on behalf of the State."
No reply of the writ petition was filed by Ishwar Chander himself and in the return filed by respondent No. 5, the allegations of mala fide and the orders having been passed at the instance Ch. Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana, are denied.
5. The facts are averred in the writ petition are that the respondent was Chief Minister of Punjab twice. He headed the nonCongress, Government and now he is the leader of the Opposition being the leader of the Akali Legislative Party; that there were elections to the Haryana Legislative Assembly on 19th May, 1982; that the respondent also visited several constituencies to secure votes for the candidates who were opposing the Congress (I) candidates; that after the elections no party attained majority in the Haryana Legislature and both the Lok Dal and the Congress (I) leaders were keeping their supporters M.L.As. separately in their custody; that there was also a public meeting which was addressed by all the opposition leaders of India in Parade ground, Chandigarh on June 23, 1982, as the Haryana Governor had given oath to Shri Bhajan Lal as Chief Minister of Haryana; that the said meeting was also addressed by the respondent Shri Parkash Singh Badal; that on 24th June, 1982, the respondent along with all other Akali M.L.As. of Punjab led the procession demanding removal of Shri Bhajan Lal and restoration of democracy and that newsitem in this regard were also published in the Tribune dated 24th and 25th of June, 1982, copies of which are annexed with the writ petition as Annexures P7 and P8. These newsitems reads as under :
"An extract from the Tribune dated June 24, 1982.
CALL FOR OPPOSITION UNITY
CHANDIGARHJUNE 23 Opposition leaders here this evening came down heavily on what they called the `illegally and unconstitutionally installed Government'' in Haryana.
They appealed to the people to use this opportunity for forgoing a new unity among the opposition parties as they did in 1997.
An impressive and responsive crowd cheered almost every leader. Mr. Charan Singh, Mr. Jagjivan Ram, Mr. Parkash Singh Badal, Mr. Harkishan Surjeet, Mr. Arif Beg and Dr. Sumitra Devi were loudly cheered by the crowd which sat for three hours until 10 p.m. in the Praded Ground which was heavily guarded by the Police.
Mr. Devi Lal proudly introduced Dr. Sumitra Devi, a daughter of Mr. Bansi Lal to Mr. Charan Singh and the people.
The opposition warned Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Haryana Governor, Mr. G.D. Tapase; and the Haryana Chief Minister, Bhajan Lal, that they would be responsible for the deterioration in the situation in Haryana. They feared that Haryana might set the trend in the country for the further erosion of democratic values.
Speakers from diverse parties congratulated those who had made it to Chandigarh for today''s rally and tomorrow''s demonstration despite the obstacles created by the Bhajan Lal Government.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
Mr. Parkash Singh Badal (Akali DalL) gave a new slogan to Haryanavis"Democracy Bachao, Bhajan Lal hatato."
The readmission of expelled persons into the party after their success in the election was the height of political immorality. He said that 31 Akali legislators of Punjab would lead tomorrow''s protest demonstration. He was sure that either their would be a repoll in Haryana or Mr. Devi Lal would be installed as Chief Minister."
An extract from the Tribune, dated June 25, 1982.
200 Hurt in City Clashes
By Shyam Khosla and Prabhjot Singh, CHANDIGARH, June, 24Opposition supporters and the Police today fought pitched battles for about 10 minutes following a lathi charge to disperse a stonethrowing crowd on Jan Marg.
x x x x
x x x x
A group of Punjab Akali Dal (L) M.L.A''s. led by Mr. Parkash Singh Badal, Dr. Kamla Verma "and Swami Indravesh were in the vanguard of the procession which, although disorderly, remained peaceful till reached the first barricade near the intersection of Sectors 3, 4, 9 and 10.
The demonstrators burnt an effigy of Mr. G.D. Tapase near the barricade and raised slogans against the Haryana Government and Mr. Bhajan Lal."
It is also averred that an application on behalf of the State of Haryana was made to get statute quo order with regard to possession already granted to the respondent by the Financial Commissioner on 14th July, 1982, vacated. The counsel for the respondent wanted time to reply this application as he was served only on 13th July 1982, and also made a request for the early hearing of the main case. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree and vacated the stay order on 14th July, 1983, which had been earlier granted to the respondent by the previous Financial Commissioner at the time of admission of the revision petition.
6. The respondent felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Haryana and he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3012 of 1982, in which the High Court stayed dispossession of the respondent and issued notice of motion to the State of Haryana. On 2nd August, 1982, the counsel for the State made a statement that the petitioner (now respondent in this petition) will not be dispossessed till the revision petition is decided. Earlier, the revision petition was fixed for final hearing on 22nd September, 1982, but the present Financial Commissioner (Appeals) changed this date to 23rd August, 1982. The arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved, but it was announced on 27th August, 1982 and the revision petition filed by the respondent was dismissed, and the respondent was dispossessed through police the next day. It may also be highlighted that Shri Ishwar Chander retired on his superannuation but was given extension in his term by the present regime. Thus, in this situation, the respondent might has bona fide impression that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) passed this order under the directions of the Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal. Although, Ch. Bhajan Lal has denied these allegations, but the plea of the respondent in these circumstances could be bona fide as the hearing of the revision petition which was fixed for arguments earlier for 22.9.1982 was advanced to 23.8.182 and the vacation of the stay and the change of possession through police was also in quick succession to the events which happened after the taking of oath by Ch. Bhajan Lal as Chief Minister of Haryana. Although this plea of the respondent might be wrong as Ch. Bhajan Lal has categorically denied that he ever directed Shri Ishwar Chander, Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner of the Collector, to pass orders against the respondent, but in the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent being the leader of the Opposition and taking active part in the public demonstration against Ch. Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana and who is politically opposed to him, could reasonably apprehend that such hasty action was taken in the matter by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) at the behest of Ch Bhajan Lal. It is universally accepted saying that justice shall not only be done but it should seem to have been done. Thus, to my mind, these allegations will not amount to contempt of the Court and will come within the ambit of sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The learned counsel for the State relied on "Ram Dayal Markarha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 921; Perspective Publication Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 221, and State v. S.N. Dikshit, 1973 Cri. L.J. 1211 (Allahabad). There is no quarrel about the principle of law as laid down in these authorities, but these do not help the State. Ram Dayal''s case (supra) was a case of an Advocate who was convicted for committing criminal contempt by scandalising or tending to scandalise or lowering or tending to lower the authority of the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Umaria, by publishing a pamphlet commenting upon a judgment of that Court. In Perspective Publications case (supra), the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. was convicted and sentenced for having committed contempt of Mr. Justice Tarkunde in his judicial capacity and of the Court by publishing an article in a weekly periodical called "Mainstream" in which imputation of impropriety, lack of integrity and oblique motives to Justice Tarkunde were made in the matter of deciding the ThackersayBlitz suit which was decreed in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs. In State of v. S.N. Dikshit (supra), the respondent (contemnor) was convicted for committing contempt of court by making specific allegations in unequivocal terms against the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Etawah of taking bride in his letter dated 16th September, 1971 addressed to Mr. Ghiasuddin, Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) with a copy to Mr. Justice D.S. Mathur, Administrative Judge, Allahabad High Court.
7. The present case, is, however, fully covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court reported as Court on its own Motion v. Ram Piara Comrade, 1973 Cri. L.J. 1106 (P&H), wherein it was held as under :
"Where an order of Magistrate is so patently illegal and unexpected of any Judicial officer with least experience that any person is likely to be led to the impression that extraneous considerations might have prevailed with the Magistrate then the complaint to that effect by a person to the Chief Justice of High Court and sending copies of the same to the Governor and the Chief Minister would be covered by Section 6 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and would not amount to a publication tending to scandalise the Court within the meaning of Section 2(c). The mere fact that copies were sent to the Chief Justice of India who too is believed to be having supervisory control over the judiciary does not in any way amount to publication."
The same view was taken by Calcutta High Court in S.N. Chakraborty v Bimalendu Mazumdar, AIR 1972 Cal. 353, In re Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, AIR 1965 SC 745, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :
"A Court should never forget that the power of punish for contempt large as it is, must always be exercise cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Frequent or indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain the dignity or status of the Court, but may sometimes affect it adversely. Wise Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observed in their judicial conduct. What is true of the judicature is equally true of the Legislature."
In Ram Piara Comrade''s case (supra), the respondent was not a party to the case, but he had commented upon the order of the Magistrate and made complaint to the Chief Justice of the High Court and sent copies to the Chief Minister and Chief Justice of India and in such situation, it was held that the case was covered under section 6 of the Act. The present case is on a better footing than the aforesaid case as the respondent did not publish the alleged imputation by making any complaint to any higher authorities or in the press but in pleadings in the writ petition only.
8. Since the respondent was the leader of the Opposition and had participated in the demonstration against Ch. Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana, he could have bona fide belief that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) had passed the orders under the directions of the Chief Minister, although this is denied by Ch. Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister. Ch. Bhajan Lal is a Chief Minister, who is considerate and humble is not arrogant or vindictive. He has respect for the Courts and would be the last person to direct Financial Commissioner or any other officer to decide a matter in a particular way. But at the same time, Sarda Parkash Singh Badal is also known for his sobriety and moderation and, in the aforesaid circumstances, he might have believed in good faith that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) had passed the order under the directions of the Chief Minister. Even anybody else placed in such a situation might have believed so. The writ petition is pending as it was admitted.
9. For the reasons recorded we are of the view that no contempt is made out against the respondent and the rule against him is discharged.
JUDGMENT accordingly
