LexBARADAKANTA MISHRA, EX-COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS versus BHIMSEN DIXIT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F .G BARADAKANTA MISHRA, EX-COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS v. BHIMSEN DIXIT September 29, 1972 495 [J.M. SHELAT, S. N. DWIVEDI ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act- APJ1ointment of interim trustee under s. 41 without enquiry-High Court's decision on the identical point not followed in bad faith by Comml,'!Sioner of Endowments in re- vision an1ounts to contempt-Bonafide but erroneous ·distinguishing of a binding precedent not contempt. Under S. 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, ap- pointed an interim trustee of two deities in a village in Orissa. The person in charge of the deities made an objection under S. 41 of the said Act, that since the deities were consecrated under a private endowment, the Act did not apply to the facts of the case. The Additionai Assistant Com- missloner rejected the objection without making any inquiry under S.41. The objector filed a revision under s. 9 of the said Act, before the appel- lant. During the period between the rejection of the objection and the filing of the revision, the Orissa High Court in Bhramarbar Santra & Ors. v. State of Orissa and Others, I.L.R. 1970 Cuttack 54 decided the identical question and (the High Court) held that the Assistant Com- missioner cannot appoint an interim trustee under s. 27 until he has held an inquiry under s. 41 and has found that there was no heriditary trustee of the religious institution. At the hearing of the revision, the said decision of the High Court was cited before the appellant, but the appellant did not follow it and dis- n1issed the revision. The applicant filed a writ petition, in the High Court against this order. The Division Bench on hearing the applicant issued notice to contempt of the High Court to the applicant. The High Court took exception to the following sentence occurring at the end of paragraph 2 jn hi~ order :- "Further, against the order we have moved the Supreme Court, and as such, the matter can be safely deemed to be sub-judice." and held .that the appellant was guilty of contempt of Court. On appeal before this Court, 11 :-VM contended tha~ the appellant was not guilty of contempt of court, tor, the sentence m the appellant's order. ·neither mterfered with the administration of justice, nor scandalised the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, . HELD.: (I) Contempt ~f court is disObe.die.nce to the court by acting m. opposition to the a!'thority, 1us1Ice and d1gmty thereof, it signifies the \\Illtul dJSregard or d1sobed1ence of the court's order. It also signified such conduct as fends to bring the authority of the court and the adminis- tration of law into disrepute, Oswald's Contempt of Court, 1910 Edn, pp. H 5-6 referred to. [-196 DJ · Iii) _It is.• common-place that. whe:e the superior court's order staying l-'roceed1ngs 1s disobeyed by the 1nfenor court to '"°·horn it is addre.lsed, Jhe latter court commits contempt of court for it acts in disobedience to 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973) 2 s.c.R', the authority of the former court. The act of disobedrence. is calculated to undermine public respect for the superior court and to jeopardise the pre- servation of .Jaw and order. [496 EJ (iii) The r.ppellant is guilty of contempt. Firstly, on the date of the order, nolbing was pending in the Supreme Court; only a. petition was pending in the High Court form a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision in Bhramarbar Santra's Case. The appellant has thus made a wrong statement of fact. Secondly, the use of the word "we" is also significant. It indicates tl)at the appellant identified himself as a litigant in the case and did not. observe due detachment and decorum as a quasi-judicial authority. Lastly, it is nor possible to believe that the appellant, who had 23 years of judicial experience,· could have entertained the view that as soon as a petition for certificate to apJ?eal to the Supreme Court was fiiled in the High Court against the decision, the binding· character of the decision disappeared. It is, therefore;. clear that the appellant deliberately avoided to follow the High Court's decision by giving wrong and illegitimate reasons and that his conduct is 'clearly mala-fide'.. [496 OJ Under Art. 227 of the Constitution, th• High Court is vested with. the power of superintendence over the Courts and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.