Judgment:
1. This revision application has been filed to seek copies of the record of C.A. No.U-3733/ E-122 R.No.122 dated 4-4-2016, which, according to the applicant, was filed in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 by the office of the Government Pleader. Normally, the application would either be allowed or dismissed for the reasons to be stated in the order to be passed. There would also not be any objection for the Court if the applicant wanted to withdraw the revision application. This could have been permitted by this Court if it had been a simple revision application without making any serious allegations assailing the record of this Court and without mud-slinging the sitting Judges and the officers of this Court. The revision application along with the documents and pursis on record contain all sorts of wild allegations amounting to scurrilous attack on the sitting Judges, the officers of this Court, including the Government Pleader, and the record of this Court. Such allegations made during the course of arguments are also noted in the orders dated 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016 passed in this revision application. It is on the proof of these allegations, the applicant wanted the reliefs claimed. The Court is, therefore, bound to ask the applicant to carry the responsibility of making such allegations by stating it on oath. The applicant is not prepared for the same and, therefore, this Court is constrained to call upon the applicant to respond to this order passed on the allegations so made.
2. The facts brought on record of this civil revision application by the applicant-Satish Mahadeorao Uke, appearing in person, reflecting the history of various litigations filed by him, need to be looked into initially.
3. Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of 2015 were filed on 22-12-2014 by the complainants Shri Hruday Babulal Parate and Shri Madanlal Babulal Parate along with the accused persons, viz. Pravin Romadhar Dubey, Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis (presently, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra) and Deepak Jaising Hiranwar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the counter-cases, viz. Crime No.252 of 1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 448, 324, 336 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and Crime No.253 of 1991 under Sections 324, 294, 506(b), and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in which the applicant Nos.1 and 2 were the accused, filed by them against each other on 7-6-1991. The Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. allowed the said applications on 23-12-2014 and quashed the proceedings by consent of parties on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466.
4. The applicant-Satish Mahadeorao Uke was not the party to both the aforesaid applications, but filed Criminal Application No.45 of 2015, claiming the reliefs as under :
"1. Take cognizance of this application to conduct enquiry u/s 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. And suo motu criminal contempt of court action. OR if Hon'ble Court thinks, this instant application may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court for appropriate orders."
"2. Recall the common order dated 23.12.2014 passed in Original Criminal Application (APL) 824/2014 (Hruday Kumar and others vs. State of Maharashtra)."
"3. Recall the common order dated 23.12.2014 passed in Original Criminal Application (APL) 825/2014 (Deepak Hiranwar and others vs. State of Maharashtra)."
"4. Examine legality, propriety and illegality of the order and the conduct of the parties in obtaining order including office objections."
"5. Suitable action under Section 195 read with 340 of Criminal Procedure Code be proceeded against the concerned parties and concerned Advocates therein including Government Pleaders."
"6. Initiate suo motu criminal contempt action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the concerned parties and concerned Advocates including Government Pleaders.
OR
In the alternative the said proceeding may kindly be forwarded to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Fort, Mumbai."
"7. Grant any other relief to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case."
The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. by its judgment and order dated 16-1-2015 on merits of the matter as well as holding that the applicant had no locus to claim the reliefs.
5. The applicant approached the Apex Court against the aforesaid judgment and order by filing the Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed on 17-8-2015 by an order passed as under :
"Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person.
No ground for interference is made out, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The special leave petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to the above, interlocutory applications are disposed of."
6. The applicant then filed Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 on 21-9-2015 for review of the judgment and order 16-1-2015 passed by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. in Criminal Application No.45 of 2015. This application was dismissed by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. on 14-10-2015.
7. On 15-10-2015, the applicant filed an application for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and order dated 14-10-2015 along with all other documents, including the cover sheet of GP File - two copies. This application addressed to the Additional Registrar of the High Court was processed by the office, and ultimately by speaking order dated 28-10-2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Shri R.R. Rathi), the prayer for supply of certified copy of the cover sheet of GP File was rejected.
8. The applicant filed Civil Writ Petition No.6195 of 2015 before this Court containing the prayer clauses 2, 3 and 4, which are reproduced below :
"2] Direct the Registry not to return original record -handwritten notes with the signature of Government Pleader on it available in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015 against their powers under Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960.
3] Direct the Registry to issue Certified Copies to the petitioner from same original record - handwritten notes with the signature of Government Pleader on it available in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015, on receipt of fresh application from the petitioner.
4] Direct the respondent to keep same original record -handwritten notes with the signature of Government Pleader on it available in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015 as it is till further orders of this Hon'ble court."
The Registrar of the High Court, Bench at Nagpur was the only party-respondent. The petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of M/s. B.P. Dharmadhikari and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. on 23-11-2015, and the order is reproduced below:
"Shri Uke, petitioner in person, submits that due to subsequent events, challenge as raised is rendered infructuous. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw with liberty to make further grievance, if any, before appropriate forum."
"This Court has not still issued notice to the respondent. As such, we dispose of the writ petition as having become infructuous."
"Needless to mention that if any grievance is open in future for making, it is always open for the petitioner to make the same in accordance with law."
9. On 11-1-2016, the applicant filed Criminal Application (APPP) No.40 of 2016 for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. It was forwarded to the Principal Seat of this Court at Mumbai for constitution of Bench to hear this application. Accordingly, as per the communication received from the Registrar (Judicial-I), High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai, the Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. was constituted to hear the said application. It is not known whether this application is pending or decided.
10. The applicant wanted a copy of the communication issued by the Registrar (Judicial-I), High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai, constituting the Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. for hearing Criminal Application (APPP) No.40 of 2016. He was, therefore, required to file Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2016 before this Court to challenge the rejection of his application by an order dated 4-3-2016 passed by the Registry. The matter was listed before me on 29-3-2016. The Registrar of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur was the party-respondent in the said civil revision application, which was allowed by setting aside the order dated 4-3-2016 refusing to grant the certified copy of the letter and directing the Registrar to issue the certified copy of the said communication within a period of eight days from the date of the order.
11. This civil revision application under sub-rule (i) of Rule 7 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 has been filed on 11-4-2016 by the applicant calling for the record of C.A. No.U-3733/ E-122 R. No.122 dated 4-4-2016 and to direct the Registrar to issue copies of the said record as was sought by the applicant in the said application dated 4-4-2016. According to the applicant, appearing in person, the said record was filed by the office of Government Pleader in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, which was decided on 14-10-2015 by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
12. On 20-4-2016, when this civil revision application was listed before me, the following order was passed :
"The applicant, appearing in person, has urged before this Court that on 14-10-2015, he was present before the Division Bench presided over by M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., and had argued Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. He submits that the judgment, which is placed on record on page 40 of this civil revision application, consisting of 18 pages, was not delivered in the open Court, but some other order was passed in his presence. He, therefore, seeks time to file an affidavit stating the following two things :
(i) that the judgment dated 14-10-2015 in Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 was not passed in his presence in the open Court, and
(ii) that th exact order, which, according to him, was passed in the aforesaid matter by the Division Bench. Hence, put up this matter on 25-4-2016."
13. The applicant sought time to file an affidavit on the aforestated two points. Thereafter, this civil revision application was listed before this Court on 25-4-2016. Instead of filing affidavit, the applicant at that time invited my attention to the pursis stamp No.5462 of 2016, which he had filed on 2242016 seeking withdrawal of the revision application on the ground that he had made a representation/complaint to the Hon'ble President of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra State, and Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, which makes the demand of the application for the certified copies of the record infructuous. He, therefore, claimed for withdrawal of the application.
14. This Court passed an order on 25-4-2016 as under :
"Shri S.M. Uke, the petitioner appearing in person submits that in the order dated 20.04.2016 passed by this Court dictated in open court, certain corrections are required to be made. He submits that the Division Bench had not permitted him to argue Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, but was permitted to argue the Pursis Stamp No.3146 of 2015 and 3386 of 2015, which are on pages 59-B and 59-D of this review application. He therefore, submits that it was wrong statement made before this Court that he had argued Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 and he wanted the correction of it to the effect that he had argued Pursis Stamp No.3146 of 2015 filed in Criminal Review Application No.3386 of 2015."
"By an order dated 20.04.2016, the petitioner was granted time to file affidavit on the two points mentioned therein instead of filing affidavit the petitioner has chosen to file a pursis bearing Stamp No.5462 of 2016 on 22.04.2016 for permission to withdraw the civil revision application on the ground that it has become infructuous. After going through the contents of the pursis, I find that certain factual averments are made, which are of serious nature assailing the record of this Court, and unless such averments are made on affidavit, it is not possible to consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of permission to withdraw the revision application."
"At this stage, Shri Uke, submits that he has filed Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 which is pending for adjudication before the Principal Bench of this Court at Mumbai. He submits that the issues which are raised in this revision application have also been raised in the said writ petition which is pending. He therefore, seeks exemption from filing affidavit and seeks permission to withdraw this revision application. It is not possible to accept such prayer orally and the petitioner is therefore, permitted to file an affidavit in this Court stating all these facts along with the copy of the Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 which is said to be pending before the Principal Bench of this Court at Mumbai."
"Shri Uke, therefore, seeks time in this matter till 04.05.2016."
"Put up this matter on 04.05.2016."
The matter was accordingly listed before this Court on 452016. The applicant, appearing in person, remained absent, but placed on record the pursis stamp No.5811 of 2016.
15. In the pursis stamp No.5811 of 2016 filed on 30-4-2016, the applicant states that the orders dated 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016, reproduced earlier, are passed beyond the subject-matter of the revision and the application has already been moved before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court with a request for appropriate action and placing the matters of the applicant before another Bench. After perusal of the pursis, the matter was kept at 2.30 p.m. yesterday, as the applicant was absent. Again at 2.30 p.m. yesterday, the applicant remained absent, and, therefore, the matter was kept on 5-5-2016. The applicant remained absent. Hence, the matter was closed for orders.
16. Perusal of the pursis Stamp No.5811 of 2016 shows that the applicant claims recusal by me to hear and decide this revision application containing the allegations, which are in substance extracted below :
(i) This revision has been filed only for issuance of copies of the documents asked for consisting of record of C.A. No.U-3733/E-122 R.No.122 dated 4-4-2016, but the orders passed by this Court in this revision application on 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016 travel beyond the subject-matter of the revision [Paras 2 and 6].
(ii) The issues reflected in the orders dated 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016 relate to manipulation of the record in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 and are related to Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis (present Chief Minister of Maharashtra); Smt. Bharti Dangre, Government Pleader; Shri B.R. Gavai, J.; Shri Prasanna B. Varale, J.; and certain persons in the Registry of this Bench, including Shri Rajandekar, the Senior Registrar, who are all related to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. [Para 3].
(iii) Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis is a party in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 and he has along with others committed a fraud on the Court.
Shri Fadnavis is a client of Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Advocate Shri A.M. Sudame, who are all closely related to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. [Para 4(a)].
(iv) It is a matter of record that in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the hand-written notes of Smt. Bharti H. Dangre, Government Pleader, were secretly used by M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., before whom Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Advocate Shri A.M. Sudame are practising. It is, therefore, not proper for Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to take up the matter related to M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. [Para 4(b)].
(v) Smt. Bharti H. Dangre has appeared for Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis in Election Petition No.1 of 2014 before Shri R.K. Deshpande, J., and in various matters Smt. B.H. Dangre, Government Pleader, has appeared on behalf of the State Government, wherein Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Advocate Shri A.M. Sudame have appeared. [Paras 4(c) and 4(d)].
(vi) It is a matter of record that in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the officials of the Registry of this Court are involved regarding manipulation of record, and the Registry is headed and controlled by Senior Registrar Shri Rajandekar, who is related to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J., and it is, therefore, improper for him to take the matter relating to the Registry. [Paras 4(e) and 4(h)].
(vii) It is seen that Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame and Advocate Shri A.M. Sudame have appeared for Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis and have relations with Shri Fadnavis in any manner, and it is, therefore, improper for Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to take up any matter relating to Shri Fadnavis and it was improper for Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to hear and decide Election Petition No.1 of 2014 challenging the election of Shri Fadnavis. [Para 4(f)].
(viii) As per the record, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. has worked in the Division Bench with Shri B.R. Gavai, J., and it is, therefore, improper for him to take up any matter in which Shri B.R. Gavai, J. is involved. [Para 4(g)].
(ix) The orders dated 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016 seem to have been passed to put the applicant in a difficult situation with intention to take harsh action, which may involve the action for contempt of Court, that too without the authority of the investigation in the issues relating to manipulation of record that amount to criminal offences. However, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. cannot do this because for the reasons already stated and also that the Senior Registrar Shri Rajandekar is his relative. [Para 4(h)].
(x) The applicant has already moved an application to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and requested for taking appropriate action and placing all the matters of the applicant before the another Bench. [Para 6].
17. So far as the claim of the applicant for recusal by me to hear and decide this matter finally on the ground that the revision application seeks direction to the Registrar of this Court (Shri Rajandekar), who is alleged to be closely related to me, I must point out that on the earlier occasion, the applicant had filed Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2016 challenging the order passed by the Registry, making the Registrar of the High Court as the party-sole respondent to the revision application. The applicant claimed supply of the copy of the communication received by the Registry, constituting Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. to hear Criminal Application (APPP) No.40 of 2016, relying upon Rule 5(1) in Chapter VIII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules without making any allegations either against the sitting Judges of this Court or the officers in the Registry of this Court or assailing the record of this Court. Accordingly, I had allowed Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2016 filed by the applicant and order passed by the Registry on 4-3-2016 was set aside and the Registrar (Shri Rajandekar) was directed to supply the copy of the communication within a period of eight days to the applicant. The applicant did not raise any objection for hearing of the matter by me on the ground that the Registrar Shri Rajandekar is my relative and he was benefited by the order of this Court.
18. As per the assignment in the roster, all the revision applications challenging the orders passed by the Registrar of this Court or his subordinate officers are required to be dealt with by this Court and day in and day out the orders passed by the Registrar in his official capacity are set aside and in such matters, the question of personal relations hardly comes in the way when the Registrar acts in his official capacity. The Registrar (Shri Rajandekar) has not been joined in his personal capacity as a party-respondent, and the allegation is made against him regarding manipulation of the record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. Even during the course of hearing of this civil revision application on 2 - 3 occasions, the applicant did not raise any such objection of my personal relations with the Registrar of this Court Shri Rajandekar. In fact, I may state here that there is not even a single order placed on record which is passed or signed by Shri Rajandekar in his capacity as a Registrar of this Court. The orders are passed by his subordinate officers and the Registrar being head of the administration in the Bench at Nagpur, the applicant has joined him in his official capacity and not by his personal name. The question of recusal on my part to make an exception of dealing with such assignment on this count does not at all arise.
19. In the orders dated 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016 passed in this civil revision application (reproduced in paras 12 and 14 above), the arguments advanced by the applicant before this Court are reproduced. In the pursis Stamp No.5811 of 2016, a statement is made by the applicant in para 6 that the applicant does not agree with the observations made by this Court in the said orders. This is prima facie a false statement, and the applicant himself had invited my attention to the averments made in para 7[a] of this civil revision application, which are extracted below :
"7[a] On 20.10.2016 when the order dated 14.10.2015 passed in the Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015 came to be uploaded on Official Website of Bombay High Court, the petitioner found something mismatching and difference in the order passed in the Court and the uploaded order. So, the petitioner on 21.10.2015 made application for the grant of certified copy of the Steno Book dated 14.10.2015 in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015. The petitioner also moved application for grant of this certified copy out of turn. The applications were rejected by the Copying Section vide the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar. Copy of the said applications dated 21.10.2015 for Steno-Book and order passed on it are collectively annexed herewith a Annexure-D."
In respect of the Court record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the applicant has made the averments in para 2 of the pursis Stamp No.5462 of 2016 filed in this civil revision application as under :
"2. In inspection, the applicant found that the Xerox of returned documents kept on the above Court's record as per order passed by the Registrar (J) on the application dated 2.11.2015 moved by the officers of the Govt. Pleader (Annexure-I) are not of the Xerox of the record which was available on the above Court's record on dated 14.10.2015 and 28.10.2015 and seen by the applicant."
"It shows that the record of G.P. file which was available on the Court's record on dated 14.10.2015 and 28.10.2015 and seen by the applicant in original form came to be changed by some different but similar record. That, some other but similar record kept on court's record shown as returned to the Govt. Pleader officials and Xerox of which are kept on the Court record. This act is committed in appeal period against the Rule 1 Chapter XV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Copy of the inspection application dated 21.4.2016 annexed herewith as Annexure-P."
"The applicant made representation/complaint in this regard to Hon'ble President of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra State and Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court."
"3. That, the above incidence makes the demand of the applicant infructuous i.e. made for authenticated/certified copies as per Annexure-A which has rendered this application infructuous. So, the applicant wants to withdraw this application."
It is apparent that the applicant himself under his own signature has made allegations contained in the orders. Therefore, he has to be given an opportunity to file an affidavit taking responsibility of such allegations. It is, therefore, false to claim that the applicant did not make any such statements before this Court, as are recorded in the orders dated 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016.
20. It is a fact that the applicant has filed Writ Petition Stamp No.20322 of 2015 before this Court (transferred to the Principal Bench at Bombay and registered as Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015), in which Shri Bhushan Raosaheb Gavai, J. (It should have been Shri Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai) is a party respondent No.4 for his transfer to some other High Court, and this fact is apparent from the pursis dated 12-10-2015, which is annexed by the applicant himself in this revision application on page No.59-D. The applicant sought exemption from filing an affidavit in terms of the orders dated 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016 passed by this Court on the ground that the issues raised in this revision application have also been raised in Writ Petition Stamp No.20322 of 2015. The applicant was, therefore, required to carry the responsibility of alleging and proving the fact that the issues involved in this revision application are the same issues which are involved in Writ Petition Stamp No.20322 of 2015.
21. Reading the entire averments made in this civil revision application and the documents annexed thereto creates an impression that the applicant wanted to allege in substance as under :
(i) That the Division Bench of this Court consisting of M/s. B.R. Gavai and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. allowed Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of 2015 on 23-10-2015 to quash the proceedings instituted by the parties therein against each other by acting on the collusion between Smt. Bharti Dangre, Government Pleader, and Shri Devendra Fadnavis, Chief Minister of Maharashtra.
(ii) That the Criminal Application (APPP) No.45 of 2015 filed by the applicant for review of the judgment and order dated 23-12-2014 passed in Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of 2015 were decided by the Division Bench consisting of Shri B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. on 16-1-2015 to favour Shri Devendra Fadnavis, Chief Minister of Maharashtra, with whom Shri B.R. Gavai, J. is closely related.
(iii) That he had filed Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. on 14-10-2015, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 16-1-2015 passed by the Division Bench of Shri B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. in Criminal Application (APPP) No.45 of 2015, on the basis of the record secretly produced by the office of the Government Pleader.
(iv) That the judgment delivered on 14-10-2015 in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 was not dictated in open Court by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., but some different order was passed in the open Court in presence of the applicant.
(v) That Shri Devendra Fadnavis (the present Chief Minister of Maharashtra) is the client of Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Shri A.M. Sudame, and, therefore, it was not proper on the part of Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to hear and decide the Election Petition No.1 of 2014 filed by the applicant challenging the election of Shri Devendra Fadnavis.
(vi) Shri Devendra Fadnavis and Smt. Bharti Dangre, Government Pleader, have practised fraud upon the Court by acting in collusion.
(vii) The court record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 has been manipulated by Shri Rajandekar, acting as the Registrar of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur.
(viii) If Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. was so much interested in the investigation, he ought to have ordered to seize the concerned record of Criminal Application No.1081 of 2015 from the Registry and direct for placing the record for investigation before the appropriate legal forum. However, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. cannot do this because of the above reasons and also if Senior Registrar Shri Rajandekar is his relative.
22. If this Court is required to consider the question of investigation into the manipulation of the record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the first step, which this Court will be required to do is to require the applicant to file an affidavit in support of such allegations to carry the responsibility and the consequences flowing therefrom. The allegations are wild, reckless, scandalous and scurrilous attack on the persons of the sitting Judges of this Court, the officers of this Court, including the Government Pleader, and the Registrar, and to assail the record of this Court, which is presumed to be sacrosanct.
23. The applicant had filed Election Petition No.1 of 2014 challenging the election of Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis in this Court and I was designated as a Judge by the Hon'ble Chief Justice to decide the said election petition. The said election petition was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure on 19-8-2015. It was pending for almost 1-1/2 years and at no point of time, the applicant, who was appearing in person, did raise any such objection of hearing of the said election petition by me on the ground that I am related to Shri Devendra Fadnavis, who is alleged to be the client of Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Shri A.M. Sudame. If the applicant was knowing the alleged fact, he should have immediately pointed it out to me with details. A plea of recusal need to be raised at the initial stage, at any rate, before the decision in the matter. If such plea had been raised at the appropriate time with the details, I could have decided whether to recuse myself from taking up the said matter. It is only on 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016, i.e. after about 8 months of this decision in the Election Petition, when in the present revision application this Court asked the applicant to carry responsibility of the allegations made against sitting Judges, officers of the Court and in respect of the record of this Court, the applicant has raised a plea of recusal on such ground. At any rate, it is not understood as to how and in what manner the decision in Election Petition disqualifies me from taking up this revision application. The object and intent in raising such plea at this stage is not only to browbeat but to make unjustified aspersions on impartiality in discharge of judicial functions.
24. I must make it clear that I am not in any manner in relation with Shri Devendra Fadnavis, who became the Chief Minister of Maharashtra for the first time in 2013-14. I might have decided some cases against him before he became the Chief Minister. My father is a designated Senior Advocate since 197677 and is engaged by lot many advocates to argue the matter for their clients. In the absence of details, including case number and the year of the alleged case, it is not possible to respond to such allegations. It is not possible to maintain a list of such clients to find out in each matter whether I can take up such matter, unless parties to the lis before me bring it to the notice during the hearing that either I had appeared for such party or that he is the client of my father or the relative. Many times, it happens that the cases of the distant relatives or the clients during practice of law are also dealt with unknowingly or sub-consciously and the orders are passed either in their favour or against them.
25. A Judge may recuse at his own choice from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice and it would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of the litigating party, unless justified, must never be acceded to. This is what the Apex Court has held recently in NJAC case instituted by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another v. Union of India, reported in 2015 (11) SCALE 1. The question of recusal is normally decided by a Judge on the basis of his personal or private interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, his intimacy with the party/parties to a lis before him, his perception about conflict of interest in taking up the matter, and his own conscience. Such decision does not depend upon the dictates of lawyers or litigants. There can be numerous such cases, where the question of recusal arises, some of which can be broadly cited as under :
(i) The relations between the lawyers and their clients are always considered to be professional. While in practice of law as a Standing Counsel of corporate or statutory bodies or authorities, may not deter taking up or dealing with the matters of such bodies or authorities as a Judge unless the subject-matter of the litigation was handled as a professional. Day in and day out, such matters are taken up and the orders are passed either in favour or against such bodies or authorities.
(ii) Many times, personal matters of lawyers regularly practising in the Court, who are the members of the Bar Association, are required to be dealt with. Merely because some such lawyer was a professional colleague while in practice may not act as a disqualification for taking up his matter, and a Judge decides it on the basis of his intimacy with such lawyer and the subject-matter of the litigation or his conscience.
(iii) The participation of lawyers in political activities or the activities of the Bar Association or in the voluntary organizations and the local bodies is phenomenal. Such lawyers frequently come before the Court as a litigant in public interest litigations to espouse or defend the common cause. The fact that such a lawyer is a regular practitioner before this Court, does not come in the way of adjudicating such matters, as the Court is concerned with the subject-matter of the litigation and the beneficiaries of it.
(iv) Many times, it happens that a lawyer having personal matter before the Court occupies the highest position in the Bar Association and shares the dais with the Judges in the official functions organized by the High Court or the Bar Association, or visits the Judges at their residence to express the condolences. These facts can hardly be a ground or reason for recusal by a Judge to take up the matters of such lawyers.
26. The applicant filed Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 for review of the judgment and order dated 1612015, which was dismissed by the Division Bench, consisting of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., on 14-10-2015. The reliefs claimed by the applicant in the present Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2016 were also claimed in substance by the applicant by filing earlier Writ Petition No.6195 of 2015, and when the applicant found that the petition was liable to be dismissed, he made a statement before the Court that the petition has become infructuous, and accordingly it was disposed of by the Division Bench, consisting of M/s. B.P. Dharmadhikari and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. on 23-11-2015. Once the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, it follows that the grievance of the applicant for supply of copy of the record, said to have been filed by the Government Pleader in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, did not survive. In spite of this, the present civil revision application has been filed, which, in substance, claims the same reliefs based upon the same allegations, which is apparent from the reading of writ petition and this revision application. On earlier occasion, this Court seems to have shown some leniency in accepting a plea of petition becoming infructuous. Now in order to avoid compliance of the orders dated 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016, the applicant has adopted the same modus operandi of withdrawal of this revision as infructuous by levelling serious allegations in the pursis Stamp No.5462 of 2016. Thus, prima facie, the applicant is indulged in the activities of abusing the process of Court with an ulterior motive.
27. I have called from the office a copy of Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 filed by the applicant claiming the relief of transfer of Shri B.R. Gavai, J. from the Bombay High Court to any other High Court. Para 6 of the said writ petition being relevant, is reproduced below:
"6. That, the daily Lokmat Nagpur dated 26th July 2015 published the news on the said occasion of death of Shri R.S. Gavai. While paying his condolence to late Shri R.S. Gavai, Shri Devendra Fadnavis in his condolence stated that 'I had personal relation relationship with him'. The various news items published in various news paper shows that Mr. Devendra Fadnavis visited the bungalow of respondent no.4 on this sad occasion. It shows the relations of respondent no.4 with Shri Devendra Fadnavis. That, the respondent no.4 dealt with the matter of Shri Devendra Fadnavis for quashing Criminal proceeding i.e. Criminal Application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. (APL) No.824/2014 pending against Shri Fadnavis. When the petitioner filed information/application as per the Chapter XXXIV Rule 5(i) to 5(f) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 to bring the illegal acts committed by the parties therein. The respondent no.4 taken up this matter without jurisdiction and passed unwanted remarks against the petitioner even when the petitioner filed specific pursis about legal position of above Rules on record. It shows question on his fairness and integrity as well as judicial propriety of respondent no.4 towards his duties as a Judge as on one hand Shri Fadnavis is openly speaking of his personal relationship with Shri R.S. Gavai and on the other hand the respondent no.4, who is a son of Shri R.S. Gavai, is dealing and quashed the criminal case of Shri Fadnavis."
28. After reading the entire Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015, I do not find any semblance of the averments made therein with the controversy involved in this revision application. This revision application seeks copies of documents contained in the record, said to have been filed by the office of Government Pleader in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. According to the applicant, such record is returned. As such, it was not a part and parcel of the record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. The judgment dated 14-10-2015 in the said application does not refer to any such record. Even para 6 in Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015, reproduced earlier, does not refer to Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. Thus, this is another attempt to make false statement before this Court, recorded in the order dated 25-4-2016 passed in this revision application, with a view avoid this Bench.
29. The applicant filed the Transfer Petition (Civil) No.672 of 2016 before the Apex Court. The applicant wanted transfer of Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 filed by him seeking transfer of Shri B.R. Gavai, J. to some other High Court. On 2-5-2016, the Apex Court passed an order in the said petition, which is reproduced below :
"Heard.
We do not see any merit in this transfer petition, which is hereby dismissed.
At this stage, Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits, on instructions of the petitioner who is also present in-person, that the petitioner proposes to unconditionally withdraw Civil Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 filed by him before the High Court and that this Court could record that submission leaving it open to the High Court to dismiss the said petition as withdrawn by passing a formal order on the subject.
We record the submission made at the Bar and leave it open to the High Court to dismiss the writ petition as withdraw unconditionally."
30. Immediately thereafter on or about 10th May, 2016, the applicant has in his own name publicized all the aforesaid allegations on the website of tennews.in. The allegations so widely published, are reproduced below :
"Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra
Mr. Devendra Fadnavis is expert in Criminal
Conspiracy, Misleading, Fraud etc.
1 week ago
by tennews.in
0 Comments
1. Mr. Devendra is advocate and member of the bar council of Maharashtra and Goa, member of the District Bar Association Nagpur, having portfolio of Ministry of Law and Judiciary as well as Home Department. In short he know the Law very well.
2. When Devendra had personal relationships with Shri R.S. Gavai (former Government of State of Kerla, Bihar), Devendra filed one Criminal Application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. no.824/2014 before Shri B.R. Gavai J. (son of late Shri R.S. Gavai, before the death of Shri R.S. Gavai) at Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. Devendra got Charge sheet U/S 324 of I.P.C. Quashed without filing copy of charge sheet on Court's record. Devendra deliberately and knowingly not disclosed his relations of with the family member of Shri B.R. Gavai J. Devendra also shown one Madanlal Parate as a co-accused and co-applicant in the said criminal matter and also got affidavit swear through in the hands and signature of said Madanlal Parate (the fake accused, who was never a co-accused in said Criminal case with Devendra). Devendra through his G.P./college mate (Advocate in Election Petition) Smt. Bharti Dangre and other A.G.P. also made secret communication with the Judges including Shri B.R. Gavai J for decision of one application filed therein.
3. Devendra is having friendly/social/Advocate with senior counsel Adv. K.H. Deshpande, Adv. Mohan Sudame, Adv. Akshay Sudame. One Election Petition no.1/2014 filed before the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court for challenging the election of Devendra on the ground of non disclosure of criminal cases pending against him in the Criminal Courts. The said Election Petition came to be allotted to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J (who is a son of Adv. K.H. Deshpande, father in law of Adv. Akshay Sudame, father in law of son's of Adv. Mohan Sudame). Devendra Fadnavis knowingly not disclose the said relations before the High Court and the opponent therein and filed the application for rejection of plaint and got relief from the said judge of High Court.
4. It was a duty of Devendra Fadnavis to bring on the record of High Court and in the knowledge of the opponent about his relations with the family members of the above judges. Devendra not disclosed the above facts and took disadvantage as a outcome of such relations and committed Criminal Conspiracy, Misleading and Fraud on Court-Institution of Justice, the opponent including Adv. Satish Uke, Nagpur and Public at large by showing his image clean and clearn. Devendra is showing and posing his image clean and clear and committed cheating with public at large.
5. The copies if attached documents with Hindu version of the above facts are showing the factual position of nature and act of Mr. Devendra Fadnavis and others involved therein.
To,
Respected all of U
From,
Adv. Satish Uke
Nagpur-440027.
Mob.No.09373103123."
31. Thereafter also, on 21-5-2016, the applicant-Satish Uke has publicized in his own name, the following allegations on the "Facebook" :
32. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India and another, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 255, the Apex Court was concerned with the public interest litigation filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India making intentional mud-slinging against advocates, Supreme Court as also other constitutional institutions indulged in by an advocate. The Apex Court observed that the petition was drafted in a careless manner with meaningless and self-contradictory pleadings consisting of clumsy allegations and irrelevant facts, giving prima facie rise to an offence of contempt of Court. The Apex Court directed the Registry to draw up appropriate proceedings for contempt and to issue notice to the petitioner therein as to why the petitioner should not be proceeded with under the Contempt of Courts Act for overstepping the limit of self-restraint.
33. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Roshan Lal Ahuja, In Re, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 446, the Apex Court was considering the allegations made in the memorandum of writ petition and in the representation made before the President of India containing scurrilous and indecent attacks on the Court as well as on the Judges of the Court in wild, intemperate and abusive language. The Court found that the language used in the offending documents has not only the effect of scandalizing and lowering the authority of the Court in relation to judicial matters but also has the effect of substantially interfering with and obstructing the administration of justice. The Court holds that the unfounded and unwarranted aspersions on the impartiality and ability of the Judges of the Court to render justice has the tendency to undermine the authority of the Court and create a distrust in the public mind as to the capacity of Judges of the Court to mete out even-handed justice. The Court holds that the remarks made by the contemner are disparaging in character and derogatory to the dignity of the Court and besides scandalising the Court in relation to judicial matters have the tendency to shake the confidence of the public in the Apex Court.
34. Para 11 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced below :
"11. The tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure an order which they desire is on the increase and it is high time that serious note is taken of the same. No latitude can be given to a litigant to browbeat the court. Merely because a party chooses to appear in person, it does not give him a licence to indulge in making such aspersions as have the tendency to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters." 35. In para 12 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed as under :
"12. However, when from the criticism a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring down the image of the judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute the courts must bester themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law. No litigant can be permitted to overstep the limits of fair, bona fide and reasonable criticism of a judgment and bring the courts generally in disrepute or attribute motives to the Judges rendering the judgment. Perversity, calculated to undermine the judicial system and the prestige of the court, cannot be permitted for otherwise the very foundation of the judicial system is bound to be undermined and weakened and that would be bad not only for the preservation of rule of law but also for the independence of judiciary. Liberty of free expression is not to be confused with a licence to make unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the Judges or the courts in relation to judicial matters. No system of justice can tolerate such an unbridled licence. Of course "Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men", but the members of the public have to abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice and exercise their right of free criticism without malice or in any way attempting to impair the administration of justice and refrain from making any comment which tends to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters."
36. In the decision in the case of Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh and others, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 384, the Apex Court was dealing with the aspersions cast on the learned Judge of the High Court dealing with the election petition. Para 33 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced below :
"33. Thereafter, the appellant as already noticed, filed a transfer petition in this Court which was dismissed on 30-8-1993. The transfer petition like the application (supra) cast aspersions on the learned Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions and had the tendency to scandalise the Court. It was an attempt to browbeat the learned Judge of the High Court and cause interference in the conduct of a fair trial. Not only are the aspersions derogatory, scandalous and uncalled for but they also tend to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect. The contents of the application seeking stay as also of the transfer petition, bring the court into disrepute and are an affront to the majesty of law and offend the dignity of the court. The appellant is an advocate and it is painful that by filing the application and the petition as a party in person, couched in an objectionable language, he permitted himself the liberty of indulging in an action, which ill behoves him and does little credit to the noble profession to which he belongs. An advocate has no wider protection than a layman when he commits an act which amounts to contempt of court. It is most unbefitting for an advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because he does not get the expected result, which according to him is the fair and reasonable result available to him. Judges cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders. Only because a lawyer appears as a party in person, he does not get a licence thereby to commit contempt of the court by intimidating the Judges or scandalising the courts. He cannot use language, either in the pleadings or during arguments, which is either intemperate or unparliamentary."
"These safeguards are not for the protection of any Judge individually but are essential for maintaining the dignity and decorum of the courts and for upholding the majesty of law. Judges and courts are not unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of their judgments. Fair comments, even if, outspoken, but made without any malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice and made in good faith, in proper language, do not attract any punishment for contempt of court. However, when from the criticism a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute the courts must bestir themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law. The appellant, has, undoubtedly committed contempt of court by the use of objectionable and intemperate language. No system of justice can tolerate such unbridled licence on the part of a person, be he a lawyer, to permit himself the liberty of scandalising a court by casting unwarranted, uncalled for and unjustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions as it amounts to an interference with the due course of administration of justice."
37. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 106, the Apex Court was concerned with the plea of recusal of the Presiding Judge to deal with the matter and the question of barring an advocate from practising before the High Court in exercise of the inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Paras 238 and 239 of the said decision being relevant, are reproduced below :
"238. In Supreme Court Bar Assn. the direction prohibiting an advocate from appearing in court for a specified period was viewed as a total and complete denial of his right to practise law and the bar was considered as a punishment inflicted on him. In Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal it was seen not as punishment for professional misconduct but as a measure necessary to regulate the court's proceedings and to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of the courts. We may respectfully add that in a given case a direction disallowing an advocate who is convicted of criminal contempt from appearing in court may not only be a measure to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of the courts but may become necessary for the self-protection of the court and for preservation of the purity of court proceedings. Let us, for example, take the case where an advocate is shown to have accepted money in the name of a judge or on the pretext of influencing him; or where an advocate is found tampering with the court's record; or where an advocate is found actively taking part in faking court orders (fake bail orders are not unknown in several High Courts!); or where an advocate has made it into a practice to browbeat and abuse judges and on that basis has earned the reputation to get a case transferred from an "inconvnient" court; or where an advocate is found to be in the habit of sending unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation petitions against judicial officers and judges to the superior courts. Unfortunately these examples are not from imagination. These things are happening more frequently than we care to acknowledge."
"239. We may also add that these illustrations are not exhaustive but there may be other ways in which a malefactor's conduct and actions may pose a real and imminent threat to the purity of court proceedings, cardinal to any court's functioning, apart from constituting a substantive offence and contempt of court and professional misconduct. In such a situation the court does not only have the right but it also has the obligation cast upon it to protect itself and save the purity of its proceedings from being polluted in any way and to that end bar the malefactor from appearing before the courts for an appropriate period of time."
38. While dealing with the question of recusal by Shri B.R. Gavai, J. to hear Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. has made the observations against the applicant-Shri Satish Uke in paras 10, 12 and 18 in the judgment dated 14-10-2015 as under :
"10. The present applicant before us happens to be a lawyer and member of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. As an officer of the Court, it is lawyer's duty to uphold the majesty of law and assist in the administration of justice. However, the entire conduct of the applicant as can be reflected in the present application itself would reveal that rather than having any respect for the majesty of law, he has involved time and again in making serious allegations against the sitting Judges of this Court, the Chief Minister and the Government Pleader."
"12. It will not be out of place to mention that the father of one of us i.e. B.R. Gavai, J., late Shri R.S. Gavai was an active politician for a period of almost 60 years. If a father of a judge happens to be a politician and after the mortal remains are brought to his residence and if the politicians visit the residence to pay their last respect, is it the expectation of the applicant, that the judge concerned should ask the guards at his house to stop the visitors and politicians."
"18. The present order along with the copies of all the relevant proceedings shall be forwarded forthwith to the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of this Court, the learned Advocate General of Maharashtra, the Chairman of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for considering as to whether anything needs to be done in the matter."
39. The applicant himself is a practising lawyer at Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. From the office of this Court, I have called the information about the cases in which the applicant is appearing in person either as the applicant or as the respondent. The numbers of these matters are given as under :
Case No./Crime No. | ||
| Criminal Application No.1323/2010 | Criminal Application No.1916/2010 | Criminal Application No.1915/2010 |
| Criminal Application No.1884/2010 | Criminal Application No.1951/2010 | Criminal Application No.1952/2010 |
| Criminal Application No.1950/2010 | Criminal Writ Petition No.294/2011 | Criminal Writ Petition No.441/2010 |
| Criminal Writ Petition No.618/2005 (Decided) | Criminal Contempt Petition No.2/2015 in APL No.491/2013 | Criminal Application (APPP) No.955/2014 in Criminal Application (APL) No.258/2013 (Decided) with Criminal Application (APL) No.491/2013 |
| Criminal Application (APPP) No.40/2015 in Cri. Application (APPP) No.1081/2015 (D) in Criminal Application No.45/2015 (D) in Criminal Application (APL) No.824/2014 (Decided) | Cri. Contempt Petition No.2/2013 | Civil Writ Petition No.2760/2015 |
| Criminal Application No.1192/2008 | Criminal Writ Petition No.23/2002 | Criminal Writ Petition No.110/2015 |
| Criminal APL No.157/2014 | Criminal Writ Petition No.1078/2014 | Criminal Writ Petition No.166/2006 |
| Criminal Writ Petition No.411/2010 | Criminal Writ Petition No.419/2010 | Civil Writ Petition No.6195/2015 |
40. There is a definite, deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt on the part of the applicant, which is discernible to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or to tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Repeatedly filing fake, frivolous and vexatious cases with the allegations to scandalize the Court, the officers of the Court, and mud-slinging the record of the Court, is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. There is a definite act of browbeating the Court to obtain the favourable orders, and wherever the attempt remains unsuccessful, to raise a false and concocted plea of recusal and indulge in the activities of bench-hunting.
41. In spite of making statement before the Apex Court on 2-5-2016 for withdrawal of Writ Petition No.11825 of 2016 levelling serious allegations against a sitting Judge of this Court (Shri B.R. Gavai, J.), the applicant has thereafter chosen to approach social media to scandalize the Court and make a scurrilous attack on the sitting Judges, the Chief Minister Shri Devendra Fadnavis, the officers of the Court, including the Government Pleader and the Registrar. This is a definite act of misleading the Apex Court that henceforth no such activity shall be carried. In the absence of such representation, one does not know what would have been the fate of the Transfer Petition filed before the Apex Court.
42. The object, intent and motive behind it seems to be only to malign the image of the judiciary. The attention of the Judges is distracted by such interference in the administration of justice. Various publications by the applicant cause an embarrassment and create a distrust in the public mind as to the impartial capacity of the Judges of the Court to mete out even-handed justice. The activities of the applicant are posing a real and imminent threat to the purity of the Court proceedings. The allegations made are affront to the majesty of law and offend the dignity of the Court.
43. In the light of the facts of this case, and the law laid down by the Apex Court, I propose to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to frame the following draft charges against the applicant-Satish Mahadeorao Uke for the act of the contempt of Court :
(1) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have instituted various civil and criminal proceedings in this Court, against the sitting Judges of this Court, the officers of this Court, including lawyers and the Registrar, as are pointed out in this order, which are frivolous and vexatious and thereby you have committed an act of abuse of process of the Court, amounting to contempt of Court.
(2) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have made statements of facts before this Court recorded in the orders dated 20-4-2016 and 25-4-2016 and contained in Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2016 and the pursis Stamp Nos.5462 of 2016 and 5811 of 2016, which you knew and believed to be false, so as to browbeat this Court on the basis of a false case of recusal and indulging in the activity of benchhunting.
(3) In various litigations as are instituted and the publications, which are referred to in this order, you, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have used wild, intemperate, unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible allegations scandalizing the Court and making a scurrilous attack on the Judges in person and the officers of the Court, including the Government Pleader, other lawyers, and the Registrar in the Bench at Nagpur of the Bombay High Court. The allegations are made with the object, intent and motive of maligning the reputation of the Judicial Officers resulting in interference in the course of justice and the administration of law by the Courts, which amounts to contempt of Court.
44. The applicant has shown the tendency of continuing with such acts of contempt, as are reflected in the draft charges. The applicant has overstepped the limits of being the officer of this Court and as a lawyer appearing in person, he does not hold any wider protection while committing an act of contempt. This Court cannot remain a silent spectator and a stern action prohibiting such acts will have to be taken during the pendency of the proceedings for contempt. The applicant either will have to be taken into judicial custody pending the decision of this proceeding or can be put to terms of giving an undertaking that he shall not, during the pendency of this proceeding, institute or publish any act covered by the draft charges framed either by himself personally or through anyone else. In the decision of the Apex Court in R.K. Anand's case, cited supra, it has been held that the Court has power to disallow advocate convicted in criminal contempt from appearing in Court. The Apex Court added in para 239 of the said decision that the Court does not only have the right but it also has the obligation cast upon it to protect itself and save the purity of its proceedings from being polluted in any way and to that end bar the malefactor from appearing before the Courts for an appropriate period of time.
45. In terms of Rule 5 in Part II of the Rules to regulate proceedings for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this order can constitute an information for taking suo motu action for contempt of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and it will have to be accordingly placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court for appropriate orders in terms of clauses 5(f) and 5(g) of the said Rules. Hence, I pass the following order:
(1) Issue notice to the applicant-Satish Mahadeorao Uke to show cause as to why the proceedings for criminal contempt should not be instituted against him for the draft charges framed in this order? Notice is made returnable on 1-8-2016.
(2) This order be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in terms of clauses 5(f) and 5(g) of the Rules under Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules to constitute the appropriate Division Bench, as required by Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to take cognizance of the act of contempt of Court by treating this order itself as a petition for contempt of Court, in accordance with law and Satish Mahadeorao Uke be shown as the contemnor.
(3) The Division Bench assigned with the matter may consider the question of taking Satish Mahadeorao Uke in judicial custody pending the decision of the contempt proceedings to prevent him from instituting such proceedings and/or publicizing the allegations against sitting Judges, officers of this Court, including lawyers practising in this Court, so as to cause an embarrassment and interference in the course of justice.
(4) During the pendency of the proceedings before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and/or before the Division Bench of this Court for taking decision on the cognizance of contempt of Court, the applicant-Satish Mahadeorao Uke, who shall be the contemnor, is restrained from instituting any proceeding either himself or through anyone else to perpetuate the act of contempt of Court alleged in the draft charges framed in this order, and/or to approach any public communication system, including the newspaper and the media for publication of the allegations covered by the draft charges framed in this order.
(5) The Registry of this Court in the Principal Bench and the other Benches of this Court is directed not to entertain any litigation at the instance of the Satish Mahadeorao Uke involving the Registry of this Court, the sitting Judges of this Court, and other officers of this Court, including any lawyers practising in this Court, without an application for leave to institute such proceedings filed in this proceeding for contempt of Court. If such application is made, the office shall place the matter either before Hon'ble the Chief Justice if the matter is pending with him or before the appropriate Division Bench seized of the matter of contempt for passing appropriate orders.
(6) It is made clear that the Registry of this Court is not prevented from entertaining any petition, application, etc., at the instance of Satish Mahadeorao Uke in respect of the matters not related to the draft charges levelled in this order.
(7) The ad interim orders in terms of clauses (4) and (5) above, shall operate from today, i.e. 6-6-2016, and the same shall continue to operate till the decision on it by the Division Bench. All the aforesaid ad interim orders are subject to further orders to be passed by the Division Bench, which shall be assigned this matter by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Unless the orders are varied, the same shall continue to operate pending these proceedings.