Dattugir Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1574 of 1994
With Civil Appeal Nos. 1575 & 1576 of 1994
With Civil Appeal Nos. 1575 & 1576 of 1994
Petitioner: Dattugir
Respondent: State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1574 of 1994
With Civil Appeal Nos. 1575 & 1576 of 1994
With Civil Appeal Nos. 1575 & 1576 of 1994
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 29, 2001
Head Note:
ELECTIONS
Validity of election of certain office bearers who held office during 1993-95 – Period already expired – Validity of the voters list. Held that even that aspect need not be gone into as, whe-never elections are to be held, voters list has to be settled. (Para 2)
ADVOCATES
Epithets used by Advocate about Charity Commissioner – On notice being taken, Advocate immediately tendering apology and filing affidavit, explaining his conduct – High Court not impressed. Held that the Advocate should have shown restraint. High Court also should not have been over sensitive. Matter could have been left there. Orders directed to be substituted. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
Civil Appeal Nos. 1574 and 1575 of 1994
1. These appeals arise out of an order made in writ petitions 722/1992, 799/1992 and 1911/1992 on the file of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad.
2. The dispute is in relation to validity of election of certain office bearers who held office for the period between 1993-1995. Inasmuch as elections have been held and that period has also expired it is unnecessary to examine the various contentions urged in these appeals. However, Shri. Manoj Swarup, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the question raised in relation to the validity of the voters list may be considered as such question is likely to arise in future also. We think it unnecessary to examine that aspect of the matter either, because as and when elections are to be held appropriate voters list will have to be settled and whether the voters have been validly permitted to exercise their votes, with such other con-tentions that may be appropriate thereto can be raised in those proceedings. We therefore, think whatever may have been stated in these proceedings may not have any effect on the aspect of the matter. In that view of the matter it is unnecessary to examine the various grounds urged in these appeals. The appeals are disposed of as having become infructuous.
Civil Appeal No. 1576 of 1994
3. This appeal is an offshoot of the order in the proceedings out of which C.A. Nos. 1574/94 & 1575/1994 arise and have been dis-posed of, just now.
4. In the course of the order under appeal it is noticed by the High Court that statements had been made in the course of the writ petition with certain epithets used thereto in the context of commenting upon the conduct of the Joint Charity Commissioner which do not behove an Advocate of standing. The expressions to which the court took exception are such as ‘gullible’, ‘frivo-lous’, false and also expressions used such as ‘musclemen’ and ‘henchmen’ with respect to respondent no. 5. When this aspect was noticed by the court, the learned Counsel at once tendered an unconditional apology for having allowed those expressions to go on record and tried to explain his conduct in filing those plead-ings by filing appropriate affidavit thereto. The High Court, however, was not impressed with the atonement made by the learned Counsel in the case. Whatever may have been the position it is needless to say that the Advocate who appeared in the case ought to have exercised utmost restraint in describing the conduct of the officers or the parties in respect of whom they have to make comments. If unrestrained language is used it is certainly appro-priate for the court to express its displeasure and in a proceed-ing by way of writ petition it is in the discretion of the court even to dismiss the same. At the same time in the majesty of law, it would be proper also not to be unduly sensitive or to be over-allergic to certain expressions which in the context have been used. When the Advocate at once expressed his regret in having used those expressions and also followed up by filing an affida-vit, we think the matter should have been left at that and the High Court need not have proceeded further to make observations in that regard. In that view of the matter, we think the order made by the High Court shall stand substituted by the order we have passed in the connected matters. With these observations this appeal shall stand disposed of.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1574 and 1575 of 1994
1. These appeals arise out of an order made in writ petitions 722/1992, 799/1992 and 1911/1992 on the file of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad.
2. The dispute is in relation to validity of election of certain office bearers who held office for the period between 1993-1995. Inasmuch as elections have been held and that period has also expired it is unnecessary to examine the various contentions urged in these appeals. However, Shri. Manoj Swarup, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the question raised in relation to the validity of the voters list may be considered as such question is likely to arise in future also. We think it unnecessary to examine that aspect of the matter either, because as and when elections are to be held appropriate voters list will have to be settled and whether the voters have been validly permitted to exercise their votes, with such other con-tentions that may be appropriate thereto can be raised in those proceedings. We therefore, think whatever may have been stated in these proceedings may not have any effect on the aspect of the matter. In that view of the matter it is unnecessary to examine the various grounds urged in these appeals. The appeals are disposed of as having become infructuous.
Civil Appeal No. 1576 of 1994
3. This appeal is an offshoot of the order in the proceedings out of which C.A. Nos. 1574/94 & 1575/1994 arise and have been dis-posed of, just now.
4. In the course of the order under appeal it is noticed by the High Court that statements had been made in the course of the writ petition with certain epithets used thereto in the context of commenting upon the conduct of the Joint Charity Commissioner which do not behove an Advocate of standing. The expressions to which the court took exception are such as ‘gullible’, ‘frivo-lous’, false and also expressions used such as ‘musclemen’ and ‘henchmen’ with respect to respondent no. 5. When this aspect was noticed by the court, the learned Counsel at once tendered an unconditional apology for having allowed those expressions to go on record and tried to explain his conduct in filing those plead-ings by filing appropriate affidavit thereto. The High Court, however, was not impressed with the atonement made by the learned Counsel in the case. Whatever may have been the position it is needless to say that the Advocate who appeared in the case ought to have exercised utmost restraint in describing the conduct of the officers or the parties in respect of whom they have to make comments. If unrestrained language is used it is certainly appro-priate for the court to express its displeasure and in a proceed-ing by way of writ petition it is in the discretion of the court even to dismiss the same. At the same time in the majesty of law, it would be proper also not to be unduly sensitive or to be over-allergic to certain expressions which in the context have been used. When the Advocate at once expressed his regret in having used those expressions and also followed up by filing an affida-vit, we think the matter should have been left at that and the High Court need not have proceeded further to make observations in that regard. In that view of the matter, we think the order made by the High Court shall stand substituted by the order we have passed in the connected matters. With these observations this appeal shall stand disposed of.
