Dr. Om Prakash @ Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No.101 of 1987.
Petitioner: Dr. Om Prakash @ Satya Pal Singh
Respondent: State of U.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No.101 of 1987.
Judges: A.P.SEN, B.C.RAY & M.N. VENKATACHALIAH,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 05, 1987
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW:
Contempt of Court – Premature release – The Supreme Court by its order of 1984 directed the State to dispose of the application of petitioner within three months – Appropriateness of the direction of the Court cannot be questioned by the High Court – There was prima facie non-compliance of directions – Show cause notice issued to the Secretary (Jail Dept.).
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This Court by its order dated December 14, 1984 issued a writ of mandamus directing the State Government of uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers to consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner for premature release within a period of three months from that date. It was further directed that if for any reason, the application was not disposed of within the period specified, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the concerned Sessions Judge.
2. It is evident from the counter-affidavit filed by S.K.Tripathi, Secretary to the Government, home (Jail Department) that no attempt has been made by the State Government to comply with the order passed by this Court. The counter-affidavit filed by the Government is somewhat misleading. In paragraphs 6 and 8 there is an averment that the case of the petitioner was considered on December 12, 1983 as also on June 26, 1984 and on both the occasions State Government on the advice of the District authorities and the Probation Board declined to extend to the petitioner the benefit of premature release after considering all the relevant factors. These instances of purported consideration are anterior to the order dated December 14, 1984. There is an attempt in paragraph 11 to justify the action of the State Government. It is said that the petitioner moved the High Court by Writ Petition No.2060 of 1985 assailing the order of the Sessions Judge for cancellation of his bail and reliance is placed on certain observations made by the High Court, namely:
“(I) it is apparent that it was not communicated on behalf of the State to their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the petitioner’s application had already been rejected. Once this information had been conveyed to their Lorships, there would have been no occasion for their Lordships to require the State Government to dispose of the application within three months.”
We fail to appreciate the propriety of the observations made by the High Court. the High Court could not question the appropriateness of the direction made by this Court. There is an element of impropriety on the part of the deponent to seek drawn our attention to any rely upon the observations made by the High Court in support of the plea of justification for non-compliance taken by the State Government in the counter-affidavit. The depondent who is a responsible officer being Secretary to the Government, Home (Jail Department), should have acted with due circumspection before swearing the counter-affidavit. If the State Government felt that the writ of mandamus issued by this Court was incapable to compliance, the proper course for the Government to have adopted was to have made an application for recalling the order and/or for clarification. Instead of doing so, the State Government has chosen the unfortunate course of justifying its admitted inaction on false excuses.
3. In the premises, we are satisfied that there is prima-facie non-compliance of this Court’s order directing the issue of a writ of mandamus. Let a notice issue to S.K.Tripathi, Secretary to the Government, Home (Jail Department) who has sworn the counter-affidavit, to show cause why he should not be proceeded of the Order Call this matter on October 20, 1987, for the contemnor to file his statement, if any.
4. The application for bail is rejected.
1. This Court by its order dated December 14, 1984 issued a writ of mandamus directing the State Government of uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers to consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner for premature release within a period of three months from that date. It was further directed that if for any reason, the application was not disposed of within the period specified, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the concerned Sessions Judge.
2. It is evident from the counter-affidavit filed by S.K.Tripathi, Secretary to the Government, home (Jail Department) that no attempt has been made by the State Government to comply with the order passed by this Court. The counter-affidavit filed by the Government is somewhat misleading. In paragraphs 6 and 8 there is an averment that the case of the petitioner was considered on December 12, 1983 as also on June 26, 1984 and on both the occasions State Government on the advice of the District authorities and the Probation Board declined to extend to the petitioner the benefit of premature release after considering all the relevant factors. These instances of purported consideration are anterior to the order dated December 14, 1984. There is an attempt in paragraph 11 to justify the action of the State Government. It is said that the petitioner moved the High Court by Writ Petition No.2060 of 1985 assailing the order of the Sessions Judge for cancellation of his bail and reliance is placed on certain observations made by the High Court, namely:
“(I) it is apparent that it was not communicated on behalf of the State to their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the petitioner’s application had already been rejected. Once this information had been conveyed to their Lorships, there would have been no occasion for their Lordships to require the State Government to dispose of the application within three months.”
We fail to appreciate the propriety of the observations made by the High Court. the High Court could not question the appropriateness of the direction made by this Court. There is an element of impropriety on the part of the deponent to seek drawn our attention to any rely upon the observations made by the High Court in support of the plea of justification for non-compliance taken by the State Government in the counter-affidavit. The depondent who is a responsible officer being Secretary to the Government, Home (Jail Department), should have acted with due circumspection before swearing the counter-affidavit. If the State Government felt that the writ of mandamus issued by this Court was incapable to compliance, the proper course for the Government to have adopted was to have made an application for recalling the order and/or for clarification. Instead of doing so, the State Government has chosen the unfortunate course of justifying its admitted inaction on false excuses.
3. In the premises, we are satisfied that there is prima-facie non-compliance of this Court’s order directing the issue of a writ of mandamus. Let a notice issue to S.K.Tripathi, Secretary to the Government, Home (Jail Department) who has sworn the counter-affidavit, to show cause why he should not be proceeded of the Order Call this matter on October 20, 1987, for the contemnor to file his statement, if any.
4. The application for bail is rejected.
