ADVOCATE GENERAL, STATE OF BIHAR versus MADHYA PRADESH KHAIR INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1172 · Decided: 05-03-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
.D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1172 
ADVOCAIB GENERAL, STAIB OF BIHAR 
v. 
MADHYA PRADESH KHAIR INDUSTRIES LTD. 
March 5, 1980 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. C!IlNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Criminal Contempt-Section 2(C) of the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971, 
Seope of-Statutory Limitation under Section 20 of the Act; computation of. 
The respondents were the successful bidd'ers at an auction of forest coupes-
in the State of Bihar. As they defaulted in making the security deposit in 1es-
pect of three coupes, the agreements With them were determined by the Con-
servator of Forests. 
The respondents thereupon filed a writ petition 
in the 
Calcutta High Court instead of in the Patna High Court and followed it up with 
several applications one after another both in tlie Calcutta and Pain" High 
Courts towards the forest department from preventing unauthorised removal of 
forest produce by the respondents. 
Vexed by the manner in which the respondent was filing repeated applitations-
and procuring orders of a learned single judge of the High Court necessitating· 
the filing of as many appeals to the Division Bench, the State of Bihar moved an 
application for committing the respondents for contempt of court, alleging that, 
by their conduct the respondents Wt:re obstructing the administration of justice-· 
and interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings. The Patna High 
Court held that the tespondent's conduct was most unscrupulous and that !here 
was gross abuse of the process of the Court, which could in certain circumstances· 
amount to contempt of Court. However, the High Court dismissed the appli· 
cation on the ground that it was b•rred by limitation as it was filed beyond the 
p'eriod of one year prescribed by section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The-
High Court held, on a reading of the contempt application that the material 
allegation in regard to the contempt committed by the respondents was that re· 
la ting to the filing of the application dated April 7, 1971 before the single judge 
of the Ca.lcutta High Court to circumvent and nullify the order dated March 29, 
1971 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. As the contempt appli· 
cation dated 18-7-73 in OCM 7 /73 was filed more than a year later, it WM tin1'• 
barred. In regard to the allegation relating to the filing of the petftion dated 
December 14, 1972, the High Court observed that there was no specific all'8'>" 
lion th-at any contempt of court was committed by the filing of this application. 
Though the r.espondents tendered an unconditional apology, its acceptance was, 
not considered as the application was found to b'e beyond time. Hence the appeal 
under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
Allowing the State appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Every abuse of process of the court may not necessarily amount 
lo contempt of Court. Abuse of proc'ess of the Court calculated to hamper the-
due course of a judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justi~e is a. 
contempt of Court. 
[1178A-B] 
2. It may be that c.ertain minor abuses of the process of the court may be 
suitably dealt with as between the parties by striking out pleadings under the· 
• 
_,
I 
I 
" 
•
• 
l 
.())VOCATE GENL., BIHAR v. M. P. KHAIR INDUSTRIES 
1173 
provisions of Order 6, Rule 16 C.P.C. or in some other manner. But on the 
A 
other hand, it may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct 
Which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends 
its pernicious influence beyond the· parties to the action and affects the interest 
of the public in the administration of Justice. [ll 78B-CJ 
3. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest and a vital istakc, 
in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is 
so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court 
has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the administraition of 
justice and, so, it is entrusted with th·e power to commit for contempt of Court, 
not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the 
expression "Contempt of Court" may se·em to suggest, but to protect 
and to 
vindicate the right of the public that administration of justice shall not be pre~ 
vented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. 
[ll 78C-E] 
Offutt v. U.S., 348, U.S. p. 11, quoted with approval. 
4. It is not necessary that every allegation made should be followed

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.