V.K. Gupta, C.J.
1. This is a reference made by the learned District Judge, Solan under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent Smt. Raminder Wasu Kalsi. The reference was sent to this Court through the Court's Registrar General on 20th July, 2005 and arose out of the proceedings in Civil Appeal No. 80/13 of 2001 titled Smt. Raminder Wasu Kalsi v. Sadhu Ram Tula Ram Goenka Marwari and Anr., pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Solan. This appeal arose out of the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kasauli. The respondent herein was the appellant in the aforesaid Civil First Appeal who having suffered a decree passed against her by the trial Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kasuali had challenged the aforesaid decree in the aforesaid appeal. While this appeal was pending, the respondent through her Counsel filed an application purportedly under Order 17 Rule 1 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for granting an adjournment of three months in the said Appeal to enable the respondent to approach the Supreme Court for transfer of the said appeal from out of Himachal Pradesh State. Even though the learned District Judge in the aforesaid reference has set out the relevant extracts of the aforesaid transfer application, he has also enclosed along with the reference a copy of the said transfer application.
2. A combined reading of the transfer application and the extracts thereof as set out in the reference communication reveals, inter-alia, the following:
1. One Shri Arun Sen being the brother-in-law of Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh has been acting as conduit with respect to the execution of a sale deed as well as a general power of attorney from one of the trustees of the property and said execution of the said sale deed, in favour of one Seema Chauhan of village Rohru. On the face of it, this assertion appears to be innocuous, except when one looks to its second part which is as follows:
Shri P.C. Sharma, learned District Judge, Solan, seized of the aforesaid appeal also belongs to village Rohru. The insinuation is clear when one links Seema Chauhan, the beneficiary of the sale deed being a resident of Rohru and also the learned District Judge being a resident of village Rohru. It will not be out of place to take note of the fact that the learned District Judge has clearly denied that he is known to Seema Chauhan or any member of her family. Actually, whereas he admits belonging to Rohru, he has stated that as per address given in the sale deed Seema Chauhan is resident of village Baral which is good 15 Kms. from Rohru town to which the learned District Judge belongs.2. After leveling the aforesaid malicious, unfounded and baseless allegations against the learned District Judge, the respondent went on to level allegations against almost everyone connected with the Judiciary in Himachal Pradesh. These allegations are found in Sub-clauses (iii) to (x) of Clause (e) of para (11) of the aforesaid transfer application. In these baseless, unfounded, malicious and vexatious allegations the respondent has tried to tarnish the image not only of the High Court as an Institution but also of its Officers. In view of the fact that the respondent has tendered unconditional and unqualified apology, we do not think it necessary to re-produce these malicious allegations in the body of this order.
3. During the pendency of this Contempt application in this Court the respondent went a step further (after leveling the aforesaid allegations) by sending a communication dated 6th August, 2005 through Shri K.S. Saini, Advocate addressed to the Registrar General of this Court whereby information was sought about various Judicial Officers, their transfers and postings, the minutes of Full Court meetings of the High Court, telephone numbers and mobile numbers of various Officers of the State Judiciary, High Court Guest Houses etc. List is long and unending. It is a separate matter that on 12th August, 2005 this communication was sought to be withdrawn through the same Advocate.
4. The respondent filed her first Reply affidavit on 22nd August, 2005. In this affidavit, various averments were made justifying or attempting to justify various actions of the respondent which formed the subject matter of the Contempt reference. The matter was taken up by the Court on 22nd August, 2005 when the filing of the aforesaid affidavit by the respondent was noticed but at the same time order passed on that date also notes that the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would be filing a supplementary affidavit. Supplementary affidavit was field by the respondent accordingly on 6th September, 2005, a perusal whereof clearly reveals and indicates that through the medium of this supplementary affidavit the respondent has actually tendered sincere, unconditional and unqualified apology. Actually she has gone to the extent of linking her apology with individual sets of allegations and has tried to explain, not defend or contest, as to why because of ignorance and misguidance and how because of total lack of understanding she made all the aforesaid unfounded, malicious and vexatious allegations.
5. After filing the aforesaid Application in the Court of learned District Judge, Solan, seeking three months' adjournment for moving the Supreme Court for transfer of the case (which application has formed the subject matter of this Contempt Reference), respondent actually filed transfer petition (C) No. 267/2005 titled Raminder Wasw Kalsi v. Sadhu Ram Tula Ram Goonka Marivair and Anr., in the Supreme Court but vide order dated 4th July, 2005 this petition was dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as withdrawn.
6. A bare look at the contents of the application filed by the respondent in the Court of learned District Judge, Solan seeking three months' adjournment clearly reveals that by leveling these allegations, which are totally unfounded, baseless, malicious and vexatious as well as perhaps made with an ulterior motive of thwarting the administration of Justice, the respondent not only tended to scandalize but also tended to lower the Authority of the Court and also tended to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings pending in the Court of District Judge, Solan, inasmuch as apparently and ex-fade, by leveling the aforesaid allegations in the course of aforesaid application the respondent attempted to derail the process of hearing and disposal of the aforesaid pending Civil Appeal in the Court of District Judge, Solan. Apparently, feeling and realizing that the outcome of the appeal might go against her, she attempted to browbeat the Presiding Officer of the Court of District Judge, Solan. She thought that by leveling such allegations she might coerce and intimidate the Presiding Officer of the Court into passing a favourable judgment. Actually, her aforesaid act tended to obstruct clearly the administration of justice.
7. Based on the aforesaid we are fully satisfied that the respondent has committed not only the contempt of Court of the District Judge, Solan, but also of this Court and we are further satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially tended to interfere with the due course of justice.
8. We accordingly hold the respondent guilty of committing contempt of the Court of learned District Judge, Solan as well as of this Court. The apology is rejected.
9. Coming to the sentence to be imposed, we find that even though in the first affidavit filed by the respondent in this Court on 22nd August, 2005, she not only justified her actions and went to the extent of alleging that she 'genuinely' apprehended some mischief at the hands of learned District Judge when she talked of her 'misplaced anxiety' and hurry and also talked of her committing 'technical contempt' of Court, in the supplementary affidavit filed by her on 6th September, 2005 she has genuinely, sincerely and bona fide realized her mistake and has expressed her most sincere regret and has tendered unconditional and unqualified apology which of course we have rejected.
10. We also found that during the course of hearing of this case, whenever the respondent appeared in person in this Court she always appeared to us to be genuinely repentant of her act. This and the aforesaid, according to us, is an extenuating circumstance. Taking a lenient view therefore, we, while convicting the respondent of committing the contempt sentence her to pay a fine of Rs. l,500/~ in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.