Anant Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. ordern.n. tiwari, j.1. in this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the sub divisional officer-cum-licensing authority, barhi, hazaribagh to consider the petitioner's application and pass appropriate order.2. it has been stated that the petitioner's license was suspended by order dated 23.3.2007 in view of initiation of criminal case against him, under the provision of section 7 of the essential commodities act and for other reasons. by the same letter, he was asked to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled.3. by the impugned order dated 27.4.2007 (annexure-2). the sub divisional officer-cum-licensing authority held that since the petitioner has not taken step for renewal of his license and has not deposited challan within time and did not also file his reply to the show cause notice issued to him within time, his licence stood automatically revoked.4. the petitioner has challenged the said order (annexure-2) mainly on the ground that he was not given proper opportunity of representation and the notice was sent to him while he was in custody in connection with the said criminal case. since the petitioner was in custody, he could not submit his explanation against the show cause notice. the petitioner has, thus, alleged violation of principles of natural justice and has sought to assail the cancellation order dated 27.4.2007 (annexure-2) on the said ground.5. mr. r.n. sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state-respondents submitted that the impugned order (annexure-2) is not the order of cancellation, rather in the said order, learned sub divisional officer-cum-licensing authority has simply observed that the petitioner's license stood cancelled by efflux of time as the same was not renewed within the prescribed period. the petitioner cannot, thus, challenge the said order on the ground of arbitrariness of the said respondent. if the petitioner had any difficulty in not submitting his explanation within time, he should have approached the sub divisional officer-cum-licensing authority and should have explained the reasons for not filing his reply to the show cause within the prescribed time. the petitioner has absolute no valid cause for filing of the writ petition.6. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials appearing on record. on perusal of annexure-2, i find that the sub-divisional officer-cum-licensing authority, barhi, hazaribagh has observed that the petitioner's licence was not renewed and the challan was not deposited within time and that he did not also submit explanation to the show cause within time. he held that in absence of renewal of the petitioner's license, the same stood automatically revoked.7. since the licence has not been can-celled on any charge or allegation or on the ground of not filing the show cause, i find no arbitrariness and illegality in the said impugned order (annexure-2). however, if the petitioner has to explain reason for not filing his reply to the show cause within the prescribed time, he should have approached the said sub divisional officer-cum-licensing authority. he is at liberty to do so even now. if such application is filed, the sub divisional officer-cum-licensing authority, barhi, hazaribagh shall consider the same and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation.this writ petition is disposed of with the said observation.

Judgment:
ORDER

N.N. Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Barhi, Hazaribagh to consider the petitioner's application and pass appropriate order.

2. It has been stated that the petitioner's license was suspended by order dated 23.3.2007 in view of initiation of criminal case against him, under the provision of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and for other reasons. By the same letter, he was asked to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled.

3. By the impugned order dated 27.4.2007 (Annexure-2). the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority held that since the petitioner has not taken step for renewal of his license and has not deposited challan within time and did not also file his reply to the show cause notice issued to him within time, his licence stood automatically revoked.

4. The petitioner has challenged the said order (Annexure-2) mainly on the ground that he was not given proper opportunity of representation and the notice was sent to him while he was in custody in connection with the said criminal case. Since the petitioner was in custody, he could not submit his explanation against the show cause notice. The petitioner has, thus, alleged violation of principles of natural justice and has sought to assail the cancellation order dated 27.4.2007 (Annexure-2) on the said ground.

5. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submitted that the impugned order (Annexure-2) is not the order of cancellation, rather in the said order, learned Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority has simply observed that the petitioner's license stood cancelled by efflux of time as the same was not renewed within the prescribed period. The petitioner cannot, thus, challenge the said order on the ground of arbitrariness of the said respondent. If the petitioner had any difficulty in not submitting his explanation within time, he should have approached the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority and should have explained the reasons for not filing his reply to the show cause within the prescribed time. The petitioner has absolute no valid cause for filing of the writ petition.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials appearing on record. On perusal of Annexure-2, I find that the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Barhi, Hazaribagh has observed that the petitioner's licence was not renewed and the challan was not deposited within time and that he did not also submit explanation to the show cause within time. He held that in absence of renewal of the petitioner's license, the same stood automatically revoked.

7. Since the licence has not been can-celled on any charge or allegation or on the ground of not filing the show cause, I find no arbitrariness and illegality in the said impugned order (Annexure-2). However, if the petitioner has to explain reason for not filing his reply to the show cause within the prescribed time, he should have approached the said Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority. He is at liberty to do so even now. If such application is filed, the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Barhi, Hazaribagh shall consider the same and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation.

This writ petition is disposed of with the said observation.