Full Judgment Text
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 1 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.9 OF 2017
Dr. Manohar B. Rawate ]
Residing at A19 Sangli Vaibhav Coop. Hsg. ]
Soc. Ltd., 5 Natwr Nagar, Jogeshwari(E), ]
Mumbai400 060 ] ...Petitionerinperson
vs.
1. Mr. Justice Anoop Mohta ]
Bombay High Court, ]
Mumbai 400 032 ]
2. Mr. Justice G. S. Kulkarni, ]
Bombay High Court, ]
Mumbai 400 032 ]
3. State of Maharashtra ]
Ground Floor, High Court Extension Building, ]
Mumbai400 032 ]
4. Ld. Registrar General ]
Bombay High Court, ]
Mumbai 400 032 ]
5. The Advocate General of Maharashtra ]
st
1 floor, High Court Extension Building, ]
Mumbai400 032 ]
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 2 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
6. The Attorney General of India, ]
A2341 Greater KailashI ]
New Delhi110 048 ]
7. Union of India, ]
nd
Income Tax Bldg., 2 floor, ]
Marine Lines, Mumbai ] ...Respondents
Mr. Manohar B. Rawate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the RespondentState.
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 01/02/2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 20/02/2019
JUDGMENT: (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
. By this Criminal Contempt petition filed under Article 215 of
the Constitution of India, petitioner in person seeks action against
respondent Nos.1 and 2 for playing fraud on Court by preparing order
purportedly dated 29/9/2016 which is claimed to be forged one. Prayer
clause also challenges the decision dated 27/10/2017 taken by Respondent
No.5 declining to grant consent for moving motion/application under
section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. Respondent No.5 is the office of Advocate General for the State
of Maharashtra. Respondent No.6 is the Attorney General of India.
Respondent No.1 is the Judge of this Court but has superannuated during
pendency of this proceeding. Respondent No.2 is the sitting Judge of this
Court. Both these Judges have passed the order dated 29/9/2016 in Writ
Petition Nos.2814/1992, 1716/2003, 1723/2006 and 2076/1996. These
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 3 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
petitions are filed by the present petitioner and said order records that after
hearing him and after perusal of written submissions filed in W.P.
No.2814/1992, the Court found it in the interest of justice to adjourn the
matter till the conclusion and the decision of the criminal proceedings
pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Writ Petitions, therefore
came to be adjourned sine die with liberty to the petitioner to move
application for hearing after criminal proceedings are over. Petitioner has
filed criminal complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
alleging that annual confidential reports of the year 198999 were
fabricated by respondent in writ petitions and that Court had issued notice
on that complaint.
3. The case of petitioner is he got knowledge of order dated
29/9/2016 only on 3/12/2016 when he downloaded it.
4. His grievance about the said order springs from his allegations
that the above mentioned 4 petitions came up for final hearing on
29/9/2016 in the Court presided over by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. He then
states that he was not permitted to read out the papers or composite
synopsis. Respondent No.1 did not permit him to read those papers and
respondent No.2 stated that the said petitions be dismissed and he has to
pursue criminal case as evidence is not acceptable in Writ Petition. He
was not permitted to urge anything on forged confidential reports while
respondent's senior counsel Mr. Talsaniya was allowed to submit
“anything”. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 then declared hearing to be over
and stated that petition was dismissed. The petitioner therefore demanded
certificate under Article 132 read with 133 of the Constitution of India for
appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner in his contempt petition
states that “Faces of Contemnors herein turned pale, they put heads down
and Contemnor leading the Bench waved hand at other Contemnor on the
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 4 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
Bench and with head down raised voice and said that appeared to have
read some and 'pressurizing us' and that matters would be after 8 weeks
(computer showed 24/11/2016)”. He states that on 7/10/2016 he
addressed a letter to the office of the Chief Justice of High Court requesting
Hon'ble Chief Justice not to list the matters before Respondent Nos.1 and 2
and one more Judge. He then states that the matter appeared on board of
other Court on 24/11/2016. He adds that thereafter the petitions were not
placed for hearing and on 3/12/2016 he learnt about the order dated
29/9/2016. He claims that this order is ex post facto and forged one. He
submits that on 4/1/2017 he addressed communication to the office of the
Hon'ble Chief Justice and other higher authorities making that grievance.
5. It appears that when the said petition was presented on
11/9/2017, the order of the Advocate General dated 27/10/2017 was not
in existence and hence prayer was amended later on to incorporate
challenge to that order. Grounds also have been added in the petition
accordingly.
6. It is in this background that we have heard the petitioner.
7. The office report by the Registrar Judicial 1 shows that the
petitioner does not have sufficient knowledge of law and procedure and
therefore would not be in position to assist the Court. It appears that on
3/12/2018 the petitioner claimed to be advocate enrolled with Bar Council
of Maharashtra and Goa. The then Division Bench found that the
Committee which denied him permission to appear in person has also
noted this fact. Said Division Bench permitted the petitioner to amend his
petition and also observed that the petitioner, subject to following decorum
and propriety, is entitled to appear in person.
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 5 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
8. When petitioner started addressing this Court, we were
required to tell him to stop using unnecessary adjectives while describing
alleged incident dated 29/9/2016. Accordingly, he refrained himself from
using those adjectives. However, the same find mentioned in his petition as
also representations.
9. After he finished his arguments we asked him whether he
wanted to add anything else and he replied that he had completed his
arguments. Thereafter we closed the matter for passing of orders. When the
matter was closed the petitioner sought certificate for filing appeal in the
Hon'ble Apex Court under the provisions of Articles 132 to 135 of the
Constitution of India, in case the order was to go against him.
10. It is to be noted that during arguments before this Court, the
petitioner did not refer to the decision dated 27/10/2017 passed by the
Advocate General and did not utter a word topoint out why it is not in
accordance with law. He also did not point out why in absence of said
refusal by the Advocate General, this proceeding under section 15 should
be entertained.
11. He has not invited our attention to any other order passed in
these four petitions adjourning the hearing on 29/9/2016. No such orders
signed by respondent No.1 and 2 is pressed into service. The order alleged
to be fabricated is the only order available on Court record. The copy
placed on record of Contempt Petition by the petitioner shows that it is
downloaded by him on 3/12/2016. It is important to note that in memo of
Contempt Petition he claims that the said order came to his knowledge on
3/12/2016. This disclosure of date of knowledge by the petitioner therefore
appears to be apparently irrelevant.
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 6 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
12. The order signed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Judges came to
be uploaded on 7/10/2016 itself. Peittioner has also not pointed out any
other order dictated to Personal Assistant (Stenographer) on dias and
signed by the Judges. Thus, order dated 29/9/2016 is the only order
available on record of the Writ Petitions.
13. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
1
Apex Court reported in Dr. Vimal vs. The Delhi Administration but in
above facts, we find reliance upon it as misconceived. The Petitioner could
not demonstrate how the signed order which postponed consideration of
challenge in the Writ petition till adjournment in relation to annual
confidential reports is injurious to him.
14. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 the Registrar
General has urged that statement of facts regarding proceedings and
developments in the Court in the Court order is conclusive and not open
even in appeal to be contradicted. He submitted that only Court recording
the said factual position is itself competent to rectify the alleged error and
that it must be approached immediately.
15. In present facts, as we do not have any other order except the
order dated 29/9/2016 on record of Writ Petition No.2814/1992 and other
connected matters, we find the effort of the petitioner in present Criminal
Contempt Petition unsustainable.
16. We are therefore not inclined to issue notice of this matter to
any of the respondents. We reject the Criminal Contempt Petition. Request
for any certificate to approach Hon'ble Apex Court is also rejected as no
substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution is either
1 . AIR 1963 S.C. 1572
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 7 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
involved or arises for determination.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
rsk 1 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.9 OF 2017
Dr. Manohar B. Rawate ]
Residing at A19 Sangli Vaibhav Coop. Hsg. ]
Soc. Ltd., 5 Natwr Nagar, Jogeshwari(E), ]
Mumbai400 060 ] ...Petitionerinperson
vs.
1. Mr. Justice Anoop Mohta ]
Bombay High Court, ]
Mumbai 400 032 ]
2. Mr. Justice G. S. Kulkarni, ]
Bombay High Court, ]
Mumbai 400 032 ]
3. State of Maharashtra ]
Ground Floor, High Court Extension Building, ]
Mumbai400 032 ]
4. Ld. Registrar General ]
Bombay High Court, ]
Mumbai 400 032 ]
5. The Advocate General of Maharashtra ]
st
1 floor, High Court Extension Building, ]
Mumbai400 032 ]
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 2 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
6. The Attorney General of India, ]
A2341 Greater KailashI ]
New Delhi110 048 ]
7. Union of India, ]
nd
Income Tax Bldg., 2 floor, ]
Marine Lines, Mumbai ] ...Respondents
Mr. Manohar B. Rawate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the RespondentState.
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 01/02/2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 20/02/2019
JUDGMENT: (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
. By this Criminal Contempt petition filed under Article 215 of
the Constitution of India, petitioner in person seeks action against
respondent Nos.1 and 2 for playing fraud on Court by preparing order
purportedly dated 29/9/2016 which is claimed to be forged one. Prayer
clause also challenges the decision dated 27/10/2017 taken by Respondent
No.5 declining to grant consent for moving motion/application under
section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. Respondent No.5 is the office of Advocate General for the State
of Maharashtra. Respondent No.6 is the Attorney General of India.
Respondent No.1 is the Judge of this Court but has superannuated during
pendency of this proceeding. Respondent No.2 is the sitting Judge of this
Court. Both these Judges have passed the order dated 29/9/2016 in Writ
Petition Nos.2814/1992, 1716/2003, 1723/2006 and 2076/1996. These
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 3 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
petitions are filed by the present petitioner and said order records that after
hearing him and after perusal of written submissions filed in W.P.
No.2814/1992, the Court found it in the interest of justice to adjourn the
matter till the conclusion and the decision of the criminal proceedings
pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Writ Petitions, therefore
came to be adjourned sine die with liberty to the petitioner to move
application for hearing after criminal proceedings are over. Petitioner has
filed criminal complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
alleging that annual confidential reports of the year 198999 were
fabricated by respondent in writ petitions and that Court had issued notice
on that complaint.
3. The case of petitioner is he got knowledge of order dated
29/9/2016 only on 3/12/2016 when he downloaded it.
4. His grievance about the said order springs from his allegations
that the above mentioned 4 petitions came up for final hearing on
29/9/2016 in the Court presided over by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. He then
states that he was not permitted to read out the papers or composite
synopsis. Respondent No.1 did not permit him to read those papers and
respondent No.2 stated that the said petitions be dismissed and he has to
pursue criminal case as evidence is not acceptable in Writ Petition. He
was not permitted to urge anything on forged confidential reports while
respondent's senior counsel Mr. Talsaniya was allowed to submit
“anything”. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 then declared hearing to be over
and stated that petition was dismissed. The petitioner therefore demanded
certificate under Article 132 read with 133 of the Constitution of India for
appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner in his contempt petition
states that “Faces of Contemnors herein turned pale, they put heads down
and Contemnor leading the Bench waved hand at other Contemnor on the
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 4 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
Bench and with head down raised voice and said that appeared to have
read some and 'pressurizing us' and that matters would be after 8 weeks
(computer showed 24/11/2016)”. He states that on 7/10/2016 he
addressed a letter to the office of the Chief Justice of High Court requesting
Hon'ble Chief Justice not to list the matters before Respondent Nos.1 and 2
and one more Judge. He then states that the matter appeared on board of
other Court on 24/11/2016. He adds that thereafter the petitions were not
placed for hearing and on 3/12/2016 he learnt about the order dated
29/9/2016. He claims that this order is ex post facto and forged one. He
submits that on 4/1/2017 he addressed communication to the office of the
Hon'ble Chief Justice and other higher authorities making that grievance.
5. It appears that when the said petition was presented on
11/9/2017, the order of the Advocate General dated 27/10/2017 was not
in existence and hence prayer was amended later on to incorporate
challenge to that order. Grounds also have been added in the petition
accordingly.
6. It is in this background that we have heard the petitioner.
7. The office report by the Registrar Judicial 1 shows that the
petitioner does not have sufficient knowledge of law and procedure and
therefore would not be in position to assist the Court. It appears that on
3/12/2018 the petitioner claimed to be advocate enrolled with Bar Council
of Maharashtra and Goa. The then Division Bench found that the
Committee which denied him permission to appear in person has also
noted this fact. Said Division Bench permitted the petitioner to amend his
petition and also observed that the petitioner, subject to following decorum
and propriety, is entitled to appear in person.
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 5 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
8. When petitioner started addressing this Court, we were
required to tell him to stop using unnecessary adjectives while describing
alleged incident dated 29/9/2016. Accordingly, he refrained himself from
using those adjectives. However, the same find mentioned in his petition as
also representations.
9. After he finished his arguments we asked him whether he
wanted to add anything else and he replied that he had completed his
arguments. Thereafter we closed the matter for passing of orders. When the
matter was closed the petitioner sought certificate for filing appeal in the
Hon'ble Apex Court under the provisions of Articles 132 to 135 of the
Constitution of India, in case the order was to go against him.
10. It is to be noted that during arguments before this Court, the
petitioner did not refer to the decision dated 27/10/2017 passed by the
Advocate General and did not utter a word topoint out why it is not in
accordance with law. He also did not point out why in absence of said
refusal by the Advocate General, this proceeding under section 15 should
be entertained.
11. He has not invited our attention to any other order passed in
these four petitions adjourning the hearing on 29/9/2016. No such orders
signed by respondent No.1 and 2 is pressed into service. The order alleged
to be fabricated is the only order available on Court record. The copy
placed on record of Contempt Petition by the petitioner shows that it is
downloaded by him on 3/12/2016. It is important to note that in memo of
Contempt Petition he claims that the said order came to his knowledge on
3/12/2016. This disclosure of date of knowledge by the petitioner therefore
appears to be apparently irrelevant.
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 6 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
12. The order signed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Judges came to
be uploaded on 7/10/2016 itself. Peittioner has also not pointed out any
other order dictated to Personal Assistant (Stenographer) on dias and
signed by the Judges. Thus, order dated 29/9/2016 is the only order
available on record of the Writ Petitions.
13. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
1
Apex Court reported in Dr. Vimal vs. The Delhi Administration but in
above facts, we find reliance upon it as misconceived. The Petitioner could
not demonstrate how the signed order which postponed consideration of
challenge in the Writ petition till adjournment in relation to annual
confidential reports is injurious to him.
14. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 the Registrar
General has urged that statement of facts regarding proceedings and
developments in the Court in the Court order is conclusive and not open
even in appeal to be contradicted. He submitted that only Court recording
the said factual position is itself competent to rectify the alleged error and
that it must be approached immediately.
15. In present facts, as we do not have any other order except the
order dated 29/9/2016 on record of Writ Petition No.2814/1992 and other
connected matters, we find the effort of the petitioner in present Criminal
Contempt Petition unsustainable.
16. We are therefore not inclined to issue notice of this matter to
any of the respondents. We reject the Criminal Contempt Petition. Request
for any certificate to approach Hon'ble Apex Court is also rejected as no
substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution is either
1 . AIR 1963 S.C. 1572
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/03/2019
rsk 7 / 7 CP-9-17.doc
involved or arises for determination.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:43:00 :::