# Deepak Kumar Gupta v. Amrit Abhijat, District Magistrate, Allahabad - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 869 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-02-29 - **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Shashi Kant - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-kumar-gupta-v-amrit-abhijat-district-magistrate-allahabad-43696 - **Pages:** 8 ## Text 4 All. Deepak Kumar Gupta Vs Amrit Abhijat, District Magistrate, Allahabad 869 Department, Jhansi shall not make any payment to the contractor before checking the valid Form- MM-11. In absence of the same, directions were given to curtail the royalty along with a penalty of 5 times from the bills of the contractor, which is illegal. 11. Rule-70 of the U.P. Mines Mineral Rules, 1963 provides the holder of mining lease or permit or a person authorized by him in this behalf to issue a pass in Form MM-11 to every person carrying a consignment of mines and mineral by a vehicle or any other mode of transport.The State Government may, through the District Officer, make arrangements for the supply of printed MM11 Form books on payment basis. 12. In view of the aforesaid, w do not find any illegality in the Government orders. The petitioners do not have any right to challenge the Government orders for such an act which cannot be said to be illegal. It is also the responsibility on the part of the contractors through out to ensure the execution of the Government order for the construction of the road to purchase the material like sand, stone etc through authorised mining lease holder/supplier having paid royalty. 13. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners that here-afterwards to ensure that the royalty had been paid by the mining lease holder/supplier to serve copy of Form No.MM-11 at the time of receiving the raw materials i.e. stone and sand etc.They should also provide the copy of Form MM-11, and stored goods for the purpose of construction of the road, failing which they will have to pay the penalty. The petitioners have no locus to challenge the Government Orders. 14. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J. Contempt Application (Criminal) No.- 5 Of 2006 Deepak Kumar Gupta ...Applicant Versus Amrit Abhijat, District Magistrate, Allahabad ...Opposite Party Counsel for Applicant: Deepak Kumar Gupta, In Person Counsel for Opposite Party: 870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES A.G.A. Proceedings The applicant filed a review/recall application challenging the orders dated 25.09.2007 and 21.08.2009, concerning the criminal contempt proceedings initiated against the District Magistrate, Allahabad. The applicant alleged that the District Magistrate filed a false affidavit in Civil Contempt Application No. 3344 of 2004. The High Court considered the statutory requirements under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, including the necessity of consent from the Advocate-General for initiating criminal contempt proceedings. The Court concluded that the procedural requirements were not fulfilled, and no deliberate attempt to mislead the Court could be inferred. Procedure Original Civil Contempt Application No. 3344 of 2004 was filed by the applicant. Alleged non-compliance by the District Magistrate in consideration of free-hold rights application. Criminal Contempt Application No. 5 of 2006 was filed alleging false affidavit. Bench of the High Court (25.09.2007) dismissed the criminal contempt application for lack of procedural compliance under Section 15 of the Act. Review/Recall Application No. 69346 of 2011 filed against 25.09.2007 order was dismissed on 21.08.2009. A subsequent review/recall application filed on same grounds was dismissed as abuse of process of Court. Stay Application No. 69345 of 2011 was also dismissed. Penal Sections Section 15, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Cognizance of criminal contempt. Case Law Not explicitly cited, but the case heavily relies on the procedural mandate of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Allahabad High Court Rules, Chapter XXXV-E, Rule 3(4). Head Notes The applicant, an advocate, sought to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the District Magistrate alleging filing of a false affidavit. The High Court emphasized that criminal contempt can be taken cognizance of only on motion by the Advocate-General or with written consent of the Advocate-General, or suo motu by the Court. Procedural deficiencies, including absence of consent, rendered the application non-maintainable. The subsequent review/recall applications, based on identical grounds, were dismissed as abuse of process, with the applicant directed to pay costs. The High Court clarified that disputes regarding the applicability of government orders are to be pursued in the proper forum and cannot justify contempt proceedings. Facts Applicant filed writ petition for grant of free-hold rights, disposed of on 27.01.2004. District Magistrate decided the application on 09.09.2004. Applicant alleged non-compliance and filed Civil Contempt Application No. 3344/2004. Criminal Contempt Application No. 5/2006 alleged false affidavit by District Magistrate. Initial application dismissed for non-compliance of procedural requirements. Review/recall applications filed on same grounds repeatedly. 4 All. Deepak Kumar Gupta Vs Amrit Abhijat, District Magistrate, Allahabad 871 Contentions Applicant: Alleged District Magistrate submitted a false affidavit. Claimed procedural irregularities and illegality in previous orders. Opposite Party: Contended that procedures under Section 15 were not followed. Disputed allegations of intentional misguidance. Analysis Section 15 mandates that criminal contempt can only proceed on motion of Advocate-General or with written consent, or suo motu by the Court. No consent of Advocate-General was obtained; applicant's failure to comply procedurally made the application non-maintainable. Allegations of false affidavit lacked evidence of deliberate misstatement or intention to mislead. The review/recall application sought to re-litigate the same grounds as previous applications, constituting abuse of process. The High Court emphasized that controversies regarding government orders must be pursued in the proper forum, not through contempt proceedings. Exceptional costs were imposed on the applicant to deter abuse of judicial process. Conclusion The High Court dismissed the review/recall application and held that the criminal contempt application was procedurally flawed and non-maintainable. Repeated attempts to re-agitate identical grounds were deemed an abuse of process. The applicant was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as costs in the interest of justice. The Stay Application consequentially stood dismissed. The judgment reinforces strict adherence to procedural requirements under the Contempt of Courts Act and the necessity of pursuing disputes in appropriate legal forums. (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tondon, J. & Hon'ble Shashi Kant, J.) 1. This review/recall application has been filed by Deepak Kumar Gupta, Advocate, appearing in person for review of the orders dated 25.09.2007 and dated 21.08.2009. The facts leading to this review/recall application are as follows:- 2. The petitioner, who is an advocate made an application for grant of free-hold rights in respect of the free hold property situate at 7 Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad. Since the 872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES application for grant of such free-hold rights was not being considered, he filed a writ petition no.8961 of 2003, Deepak Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 27.01.2004. The said order was corrected vide order dated 26.08.2004. The High Court required the District Magistrate to consider the application of the petitioner dated 26.04.2001 for grant of free hold rights in the light of the Government Orders applicable after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to Sri Sandeep Mukherji by means of a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the High Court's order. 3. The District Magistrate decided the application of the petitioner vide order dated 09.09.2004. 4. According to the petitioner, the writ Court's order had not been complied with, as his application had not been considered as per the Government Order applicable. He therefore filed civil Contempt Application no.3344 of 2004. This contempt proceedings were dropped vide order dated 09.09.2004. 5. The petitioner grew wiser, he filed Criminal Contempt Application no.5 of 2006 alleging that the District Magistrate has filed a false affidavit in Civil Contempt Application no.3344 of 2004. 6. The Criminal Contempt Application was decided vide order dated 25.09.2007. The relevant part of the order reads as follows:- " ....We have heard Sri Deepak Kumar Gupta-appellant and have considered the submissions made by him. It is true that if any person by misleading or by filing a false affidavit before the Court tries to mislead the Court, he interfered with the course of justice which amounts to criminal contempt under the Act but the procedure for taking cognizance in the matter of criminal contempt is that matter under Section 15 of the Act, Section 15 of the Act is quoted below:- "15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases.-- (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other then a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by: (a) the Advocate-General, or (b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, (or) (c) In relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi, such law officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officers.) 4 All. Deepak Kumar Gupta Vs Amrit Abhijat, District Magistrate, Allahabad 873 (2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the AdvocateGeneral or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification of the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. (3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. Explanation-- In this Section, the expression "Advocate-General means- (a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General or the Solicitor-General. (b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established. (c) in relation to the Court of Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gaze3ttee specify in this behalf. As is evidence from the aforesaid provision, cognizance can be taken either on suo motu by the Court or motion made by Advocate General or any person with the consent of the AdvocateGeneral or in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi, by such Law Officer as notified by the Government. In the present case admittedly, no consent of the Advocate General has been obtained and it is not a motion made by the Advocate General himself. The submission of the applicant suggests that he moved an application to the Advocate General for his consent but no consent has been obtained nor there is any claim of the applicant that the Advocate General was pleased to grant his consent on record. Allahabad High Court Rules contained in Chapter XXXV-E, particularly Rule-3 (4), requires that every petition in respect of criminal contempt, where it is not moved by the Advocate General and where the consent in writing of the Advocate General had not obtained and every petition in regard to criminal contempt of a subordinate court where no reference has been made by it and the petition is moved without the consent of the Advocate General shall clearly state the reasons whey the consent in writing of the Advocate General could not be obtained and why the court has been approached to act suo motu. In this regard, the applicant has submitted that an affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad was drafted by the then Advocate General and therefore there was not question of his granting counsel for initiating the proceedings in the matter. A perusal of the application under Section 15 of the Act reveals that it does not contain any averment to this effect, although as per requirement of the aforesaid Rule, this ought to have 874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES been mentioned in the application itself. The applicant claims that he had made such averment in the supplementary affidavit dated 05.10.2006. After considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the definite view that in the nature of controversy raised before us, it cannot be said than the District Magistrate, Allahabad while giving an affidavit of the compliance in aforesaid contempt proceedings made any intentionally wrong submission with a view to misguide the Court. The controversy was there that the Government Order dated 1.12.1998 should be taken into consideration for deciding the application dated 02.04.2001 of the applicant for granting of free-hold right or whether that application could be decided in the light of subsequent Government order dated 29.07.2004. The order dated 27.01.2004 passed by this Court in Crl. Writ Petition no.8961 of 2003, which was corrected by the Court on 26.08.2004 directed the District Magistrate, Allahabad to decide the application in the light of the Government Order applicable. The Court passed this order on 27.1.2004 when the Government Order dated 1.12.1998 was applicable but it is a fact that when the Collector passed the order, a new Government order had come into force, it cannot be inferred form the order dated 27.1.2004 passed by this Court that any person dealing with the matter cannot reasonably infer that he has liberty to decide this application in the light of the Government order applicable/available at the time of consideration. In any case, if there is controversy between the District Magistrate and the applicant with regard to the applicability of the Government Order that can be sorted out by taking proper course but we do not thing it proper to entertain this criminal contempt application on the basis of the above controversy. In our opinion, it is not an appropriate case where this Court should on suo motu take cognizance in the matter, We, therefore, dismiss this application and drop all further proceedings in the matter" 7. The petitioner was not satisfied, he filed a review/recall application, which was rejected by another Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amar Saran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Nigam vide order dated 21.08.2009. The order dated 21.08.2009 reads as follows:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. For the State and perused the record. `The review application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 25.09.2007 whereby this Court had refused to take cognizance in the matter in which the applicant has sought to initiate the proceedings of criminal Contempt against the then District Magistrate, Allahabad, In the said order it was observed as follows:- "The Court passed this order on 27.01.2004 when the Government order dated 01.12.1998 was applicable but it is a fact that when the Collector passed the order, a new Government order had come into force. It cannot be interred from the order dated 27.01.2004 passed by this Court that any person dealing with the matter cannot reasonable infer that hie had liberty to decide this application in the light of the Government Order applicable/available at the 4 All. Deepak Kumar Gupta Vs Amrit Abhijat, District Magistrate, Allahabad 875 time of consideration. In any case, if there is controversy between the District Magistrate and applicant with regard to the applicability of the Government Order that can be sorted out by taking proper course but we do not think it proper to entertain this criminal contempt application on the basis of the above controversy." In this case, we think that the Bench had rightly held in earlier order dated 25.09.2007 that if there is controversy between the District Magistrate and the applicant regarding the applicability of the Government order, the applicant could have raised it in proper forum and taking recourse to the criminal contempt is no answer. We do not find any merit in this review application. Hence, it is dismissed accordingly." 8. After more than one and half years of the said order passed on the review/recall application, the present second recall/review application has been filed by the petitioner, practically on the same grounds as had been stated in his earlier review/recall application. 9. The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, made uncalled for remarks against the Hon'ble Judges of Allahabad High Court, who had decided his earlier criminal contempt application. In paragraph 1 of present recall/review application, it has been mentioned that earlier order dated 25.09.2007 passed by the Division Bench comprised of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Rakhra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Nigam in Criminal Contempt Application no.5 of 2006 was illegal and arbitrary. In paragraph 6 of the review/recall application filed by him, he after mentioning the name of Hon'ble Judges, states that the order made by them was completely illegal. Again, in the same paragraph it has been stated that the Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amar Saran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Nigam, while rejecting his recall/recall application, committed the same mistake, which was committed by the earlier Bench. 10. The petitioner, who appears in person, could not demonstrate before this Court as how a 2nd review application could be maintained against the order passed on earlier review application and that too on the same grounds which were subject matter of first review/recall application. Filing of such application, in our view, results in wastage of valuable time of the court. 11. We are of the considered opinion that for the facts recorded above the present contempt criminal application is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. 12. In view of the above, this review/recall application no. 69346 of 2011 is dismissed. 13. We are also of the opinion that the petitioner must be saddled with exceptional costs for abusing the process of Court. In the facts of the case, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- would suffice in interest of justice. 876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 14. The petitioner shall pay this cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of bank draft drawn in the name of the Registrar General of this Court. The payment must be made within a period of two months from today. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J. THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 21 Of 1987 Mustaq and Ors. ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for Appellants: M. Saiduddin Counsel for Respondent: A.G.A. Proceedings The criminal appeal arises against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.12.1986, passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1985 (Case Crime No. 82 of 1984, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149 IPC, Police Station Gagalheri, District Saharanpur). The appellants originally numbered eight; four died during the pendency of appeal, rendering the appeal confined to the surviving appellants-Ikram, Zarif, Ali Hasan, and Ismail. The appellants were on bail at the time of hearing. The appeal was heard after detailed arguments from both parties, examination of evidence, and scrutiny of records. The Court perused the charge sheets, FIR, investigation reports, injury reports, post-mortem reports, and testimonies of witnesses, including the eye witnesses PW-1 (Irfan) and PW-2 (Mauhind), medical witnesses PW-8 (Dr. S.K. Gupta), PW-9 (Dr. R.D. Sharma), and PW-12 (Dr. A.B. Garg), as well as the Investigating Officer PW-10 (B.D. Verma). Procedure FIR lodged by complainant Irfan Khan on 28.09.1984 against eight accused. Case registered at Police Station Gagalheri, Crime No. 82/1984, Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 384 IPC. Investigation conducted by PW-10 B.D. Verma; site visited, evidence collected (blood-stained soil, weapons, inquest reports, medical reports). Arrest of accused Mazid and seizure of weapons and clothing evidencing blood stains. Injured Firdaush treated at S.B.D. Hospital; later died on 06.10.1984. Post-mortem examination of deceased Ishrat and Firdaush conducted. Charge sheets filed against seven accused, separate charge sheet against absconding accused Nafees.