R.S. SEHRAWAT versus RAJEEV MALHOTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 05-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
R.S. SEHRAWAT
v.
RAJEEV MALHOTRA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 2006)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 –  s. 19(1)(b) – Contempt of
court – Reconstruction of the unauthorised constructions – On facts,
writ petition by the respondent seeking action against appellant-
junior engineer and others involved in the incident of demolition
alleging that they first permitted to carry on unauthorised
construction on the property and later on unilaterally demolished
the structure – Suo motu action by the High Court as per the earlier
order in PIL restraining unauthorised constructions’ in unauthorised
colonies – Issuance of notices to appellant – Filing of affidavits by
appellant and other officers – Conviction of the appellant for
committing contempt of court holding that the appellant-junior
engineer by filing false affidavit, attempted to mislead the court
and his acts tended to substantially interfere with the due course of
justice – On appeal, held: Appellant was not served with any charges
muchless specific charge which he was expected to meet – High
Court made no attempt to verify or examine the contemporaneous
record relied upon by the appellant – High Court ought to have
tested the authenticity and veracity of the contemporaneous record
– Affidavit so filed cannot be termed as incorrect or misleading – It
cannot be held that the demolition work undertaken was not in
conformity with the position reflected in the contemporaneous
office submissions/record and photographs submitted by appellant
to his superior authority – Thus, the order passed by the Division
Bench of High Court set aside and show cause notices issued to
appellant are dropped.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is evident that the High Court took suo motu
action as it was prima facie convinced that unauthorised
construction was carried out in the Farms despite the direction
  [2018] 10 S.C.R. 634
  634
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
635
contained in the order in a writ petition. The order also records
that the show cause notice was accepted by the officers present
in Court. The appellant, like other officers, filed his affidavit
revealing the relevant facts concerning him. The appellant had
explained the factual position as to the action of demolition of
unauthorised structures in the Farms during the relevant period
as per the task assigned to him by his superior officers and
reporting of that fact to his superiors by way of contemporaneous
office submission. The correctness of the said contemporaneous
office reports could not be and has not been questioned or doubted
as such. The reply affidavit makes it amply clear that the
Commissioner of the Corporation was personally supervising the
demolition work of unauthorised constructions and, therefore,
there was no reason to doubt the contemporaneous record in the
form of office submissions and photographs reinforcing the fact
of demolition. The report of the Committee of advocates,
however, was based on the site visit made in January, 2001 after
a gap of more than 6 months from 7th June, 2000 and 3 months
from 14th September, 2000 when the demolition was actually
carried out. The factual position stated in the said report,
therefore, may not be the actual position as obtained on the date
of demolition.  It is not unknown that such unauthorised structures
could be and were reconstructed overnight after the demolition
work is undertaken by the officials. That was done by unscrupulous
persons clandestinely and without notice. The factual position
stated in the reply affidavit filed by the appellant also reveals that
continuous follow-up action was being taken in respect of
unauthorised structures including those which were demolished.
Furthermore, the appellant was transferred from the concerned
ward w.e.f. 27th September, 2000 and any development or illegal
activity unfolding after that date cannot be attributed to the
appellant. All these aspects have not been considered by the High
Court. [Para 9] [641-G-H; 642-A-F]
Sahdeo Alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others (2010) 3 SCC 705 : [2010]  2  SCR 1086 ;
Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v.
Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and Anr. (2011) 5 SCC 496 : [2011]
5 SCR 329 ; Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Syed Hasibur
R. S. SEHRAWAT  v. RAJEEV MALHOTRA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
Rahaman and Ors. Mrit

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