Abdul Quddhose ORDER
M. Venugopal, J.
1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Contempt Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court to punish the Respondents for the act of Contempt in not obeying the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 10203 of 2017, dated 02.06.2017.
2. Head both sides.
Introduction:
3. According to the Petitioner, he belongs to Thalivasal, Mullipadi Village and for the past several years, they are conducting Temple festival in the month of Vaikasi in Sri Mariamman Sri Bagavathiamman Temple. Therefore, they made all arrangements for conducting the Temple festival in a very grand manner from 06.06.2017 to 11.06.2017 and several devotees from various parts of the country would participate in the festival with each of them undertaking their own fasting to fulfill their vows before the deity and they would tender their 'offerings' followed by six days full programme, which would be conducted by the Temple festival committee with the cop-operation of the entire villagers. In fact, all the villagers belong to the several communities/different faith would actively participate in the village festival.
Petitioner's Contentions:
4. At this juncture, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had made a Representation on 10.05.2016 itself seeking permission and police protection and that the Respondents had not passed any orders on his Representation and kept it pending, killing the time. Therefore, the Petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 10203 of 2017 before this Court and on 02.06.2017, this Court, while allowing the writ petition in part without costs had directed the Second Respondent therein to look into the Representation dated 19.05.2017 and dispose of the same within a period of two days.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that in W.P.(MD) No. 17644 of 2015, this Court, passed an order on 12.10.2015 granting permission to the 'Temple Trust Committee' and accordingly the permission was accorded by the Respondents and also the police protection was granted and the Temple festival was conducted in a very grand and peaceful manner without any untoward incident.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner along with his villagers had met the First Respondent in person together with the copy of the order passed by this Court and since the Second Respondent was not in station, he was informed through his cellphone as regards the orders passed by this Court. In fact, it is represented on the side of the Petitioner that a copy of the Court's order was also sent to his Mobile Whatsapp and after going through the same, the Second Respondent had instructed the Sub Inspector of Police Mr. Abimanyu to visit the village and inspite of their request to comply with the direction of this Court within a stipulated time of two days, the Respondents were not interested in complying with the orders passed by this Court.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to point out that being dissatisfied with the attitude of the Respondents, because of the paucity of time, the Petitioner issued a Contempt notice on 05.06.2017 through E-mail to the Superintendent of Police, Karur District etc. Moreover, it is the plea of the Petitioner that agitated over the receipt of Contempt notice, he and the 'Temple Trust Committee Members' were threatened with dire consequences. Also, they were threatened that they would be arrested on foisting of a false case and thereafter, the jurisdictional tahsildar was requested to convene a peace committee meeting.
8. The pivotal stand of the Petitioner is that there is no necessity to conduct a peace committee meeting as there was no Law and Order problem, except a few raising their objections and in fact, the very same Temple festival was conducted at the instance of the orders of this Court dated 02.06.2017 in W.P.(MD) No. 10203 of 2017.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner takes a categorical stand that if at all the Respondents had sensed any Law and Order problem, they could have initiated moves for conducting Peace Committee meeting soon after the 'Representation', dated 19.05.2017 relating to the claim for the police protection for the Temple festival in question.
10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Contemnor had received the orders of this Court on 03.06.2017 and if 03.06.2017 is not included, then he has to pass orders as 04.06.2017 or 05.06.2017 and further that the rejection order was ante dated as 04.06.2017. That apart, the version of the Petitioner is that the ante dated rejection order was affixed in the village only on 06.06.2017 and till date, the same was not served on him.
Respondent's Pleas:
11. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents that the Second Respondent is the present Inspector of Police, Palaviduthi Police Station, Karur District and that the Second Respondent on being informed of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 10203 of 2017, dated 02.06.2017 by the Learned Special Government Pleader, the Petitioner's request was examined in the light of prevailing situation in the village in consideration of the Tahsildar, who was also requested to conduct a Peace Committee to arrive at an amicable solution to the issue between the two opposing groups in the village.
12. Furthermore, it is represented on behalf of the Respondents that inasmuch as the large number of villagers under the leadership of Sithaman and Ramasamy had objected to the conduct of festival by one group lead by the Petitioner, the request to conduct the festival was temporarily rejected on 04.06.2017 i.e. within two days period as granted by this Court and in fact, the order was served on the Secretary of the Festival Committee with a copy being marked to the Petitioner (as President) was also pasted in a conspicuous place in front of the Temple address given by the Petitioner in the presence of Village Administrative Officer on 04.06.2017 itself by the Revenue Inspector, Kadavur Firka. In short, it is the stand of the Respondents that since appropriate actions was taken by the respondent, within the dead line of two days granted by this Court, there could not be contumacious conduct on the part of the Second Respondent.
13. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents brings it to the notice of this Court that in the year 2016, there was no consensus between the rival group and hence, the festival was not conducted.
14. The Learned Special Government Pleader contends that in order to punish a contemnor, it is to be established that disobedience of the order must be willful and the act was committed without any justifiable excuse or in a perverse manner.
Contempt Jurisdiction:
15. It cannot be gainsaid that the Contempt jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court not only to preserve or maintain the Majesty of Law by taking necessary action against persons, who violates the Court's order, but to see that the 'Court of Justice' is pure. Furthermore, even an 'Abuse of Process of Court' would amount to Contempt of Court. As a matter of fact, a Civil Contempt pertains to an order of 'Court of Law' affecting the rights of other parties to that order.
16. It is to be noted that the disobedience of orders of Court in order to be a 'Civil Contempt' must be a willful one, a proof of sheer/mere disobedience is not enough. For an effective administration of Justice, the Court 'Exercising' of Contempt jurisdiction is essential concerned with the issue of 'Contumacious' conduct of a person, who is purported to have committed a default in complying with the directions of the order or Judgment.
17. As a Court of Law, when it deals with an application for Contempt, it cannot go beyond the order, non-compliance, which was alleged, there ought to be a clear cut case of obstruction of administration of Justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of Contempt. It cannot be forgotten that a 'Civil Contempt is less grave than a Criminal Contempt'. Indeed, the case should not rest on surmises and conjectures, in the considered opinion of this Court.
18. In order to sustain an action for Contempt in respect of a violation of an order, it is not necessary that the order must have been served on the party against whom it is ordered, if it is established that he had noticed the order. However, the burden is on the person, who claim that the individual against whom action is allegedly taken, has very much knowledge of the order. But if there is a genuine doubt, then the same will go in favour of the person, who is facing the Contempt.
19. In Law, an affected person has no right to insist that a Court of Law should exercise such jurisdiction, because of the reason that 'Contempt' is between the contemnor and the Court.
Ambit of Section 107 Cr.P.C.:
20. It is to be relevantly pointed out that the proceedings, under Section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code, are for maintaining 'Public Peace and Tranquility'. In fact, the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. are not punitive in character. That apart, the ingredients of Sections 107 to 109 of Cr.P.C. are there to maintain public peace and to prevent a wrongful act that may cause a breach of peace or disturb the public peace, as the case may be.
21. In reality, Section 107 of Cr.P.C. visualises that when an individual is likely to commit breach of peace or disturbed the public tranquility by a direct act and further when the person may be the indirect reason for the cause of the breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility by indulging in a wrongful act, an Executive Magistrate may take action, as he deems fit and proper, after applying his thinking judicial mind and should not pass a mechanical order just because he had received a 'Report from the Police'. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the Magistrate should apply his mind to the information received, failing which, the proceedings will get vitiated.
22. The Magistrate can prepare the proceedings on the basis of 'Police Report or Other Information' which ought to be clear so as to offer notice to the persons proceeded against. Under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. an enquiry will commence based upon the nature of show cause furnished by the concerned party. To ascertain the truth of information, an enquiry is commenced by the Magistrate and the enquiry mentioned in Section 116 of Cr.P.C. is in the character of trial in summary cases. No wonder, Section 116 of Cr.P.C. is to be read along with Section 254 of Cr.P.C.
Analysis:
23. In the instant case, the First Respondent/Inspector of Police, Palaviduthi Police Station, Karur District on 04.06.2017, had addressed a communication to the Petitioner among other things stating that his objection seeking permission for the conduct of festival from 06.06.2017 to 11.06.2017 at Thalivasal, Mullipadi Village, was considered and that under the leadership of one Sithaman and Ramasamy, the village people in the said village were raising objections for the conduct of festival and if permission was granted to one side, there was a possibility of eruption of a Law and Order problem and as such, temporarily, the permission for conduct of festival was denied. It transpires that the said refusal of permission, dated 04.06.2017, was passed by the First Respondent/Inspector of Police, Palaviduthi Police Station, Karur District, within two days period granted by this Court, as per order dated 02.06.2017, in W.P.(MD) No. 10203 of 2017 and in fact, the order of rejection was served on the Secretary of the festival committee (with a copy being marked to the Petitioner, as President) and also, the said order was pasted in a conspicuous place in front of the Temple address given by the Petitioner in the presence of Village Administrative Officer on 04.06.2017 itself by the Revenue Inspector, Kadavur Firka. Therefore, this Court, comes to an irresistible and resultant conclusion that 'No Contempt' was committed by the Respondents. Viewed in that perspective, the Contempt Petition fails.
24. In fine, the Contempt Petition is dismissed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.