# DIBAKAH SATPATHY v. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

- **Citation:** [1962] 1 S.C.R. 326
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPELLATE ,JumSDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1960
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, Baghubar Dayal, J. R. MuDHOLKAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dibakah-satpathy-v-hon-ble-the-chief-justice-and-judges-of-the-high-court-of-2122
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Contempt of Court-Circular directing magistrates to ignore
decision of High Court-If amounts to contempt.
The appellant, an Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue,
circulated to the District Magistrates, the opinions· of the:Legal
Remembrancer and the Advocate General with an endorsement
directing that a procedure contrary to that indicated by the
High Court, be followed "until the matter is carried to the High
Court in some case, so that the confusion created by the Orissa
High Court decision A.LR. 1951 Orissa 40 might be set at
rest".
Held, that the appellant was clearly guilty of contempt of
Court. He gave a direction to the Magistrates to ignore the
decision of the High Court even though that was binding on
them. This was a flagrant interference with the administration
of justice by courts.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
,JumSDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 2 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave .from the judgment and
order dated ]'ebruary 19, 1958, of the Orissa High
Court in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 8of1957.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, H. R. Khanna and T. M.
Sen, for the appellant.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India,
B. M. Patnaik, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and
Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No. 1.
1961. March 14. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Mudholkar J.
MuDHOLKAR, J.-The appellant who, at the relevant
time, was Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue,
Orissa, has been admonished for contempt of court
and directed to pay the costs of the proceedings before
the High Court of Orissa. The occasion for the institution of contempt proceedings against the appellant
,.
•••
•
..
•
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
327
was the circulation of the view of the Legal Remembri96z
· ancer and the Advocate-General to the District D.b k -
5 tp th
f h N
h
D, ' '
f 0 '
d t d ' a "'
a a y
Magistrates o t e
ort ern
iv1s10n o
nssa
a e
v.
January 19, 1955, in which the following endorsement
Hon'ble The
appears:
Chief Justice &
"I am directed to enclose copies of the opinions Judg" 01 the
of the Legal Remembrancer and of the Advocate
High Court of
Orissa
General and to say that the Law Department are of
opinion that no special authorization is necessary to
Mudholkar J,
empower Magistrates to take cognizance under section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act.
This may be
followed until the matter is carried to the High
Court in some case, so that the confusion created
by the Orissa High Court decision reported in All
India Reporter 1951 Orissa, page 40 might be set
at rest."
This endorsement bears the signature of the appellant.
After the attention of the High Court was drawn:
to the aforesaid endorsement it caused notices to be
issued not only to the Under Secretary to the Board
of Revenue but also to the Legal Remembrancer of
Orissa to show cause way they should not be committed for contempt. Both of them showed cause.
The High Court absolved the Legal Remembrancer
but convicted the appellant and admonished him, as
already stated. It may be mentioned that both of
them had tendered apologies to the High Court. Even
so, we think that the appellant was rightly found
guilty of contempt of court and admonished as well as
required to pay the costs of the proceedings .
The point on which the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer was sought was whether a Magistrate
authorised by the District Magistrate to take cognisance of offences under s. 190, Code of Criminal Procedure, can be regarded as a Magistrate authorised by
the District Magistrate as contemplated by s. 20 of the
Cattle Trespass Act. In the case referred to in the
endorsement of the appellant, the Orissa High Court
had taken the view following the decision in Raghu
Singh v. Abdul Wahab (')that authorisation is necessary.
The decision in Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab (')was
(r) (1896) !,L.R. 23 Cal. 442.
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
I90I
_
dissented from in Budhan Mahto v. lssur Singh(') and
Dibaliar Satpathy it does not appear that this fact was brought to the ·
v.
notice of the

## Text

I96z
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
DIBAKAH SATPATHY
v.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES
OF THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
(K. SUBBA RAO, BAGHUBAR DAYAL and
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Contempt of Court-Circular directing magistrates to ignore
decision of High Court-If amounts to contempt.
The appellant, an Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue,
circulated to the District Magistrates, the opinions· of the:Legal
Remembrancer and the Advocate General with an endorsement
directing that a procedure contrary to that indicated by the
High Court, be followed "until the matter is carried to the High
Court in some case, so that the confusion created by the Orissa
High Court decision A.LR. 1951 Orissa 40 might be set at
rest".
Held, that the appellant was clearly guilty of contempt of
Court. He gave a direction to the Magistrates to ignore the
decision of the High Court even though that was binding on
them. This was a flagrant interference with the administration
of justice by courts.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
,JumSDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 2 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave .from the judgment and
order dated ]'ebruary 19, 1958, of the Orissa High
Court in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 8of1957.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, H. R. Khanna and T. M.
Sen, for the appellant.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India,
B. M. Patnaik, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and
Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No. 1.
1961. March 14. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Mudholkar J.
MuDHOLKAR, J.-The appellant who, at the relevant
time, was Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue,
Orissa, has been admonished for contempt of court
and directed to pay the costs of the proceedings before
the High Court of Orissa. The occasion for the institution of contempt proceedings against the appellant
,.
•••
•
..
•
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
327
was the circulation of the view of the Legal Remembri96z
· ancer and the Advocate-General to the District D.b k -
5 tp th
f h N
h
D, ' '
f 0 '
d t d ' a "'
a a y
Magistrates o t e
ort ern
iv1s10n o
nssa
a e
v.
January 19, 1955, in which the following endorsement
Hon'ble The
appears:
Chief Justice &
"I am directed to enclose copies of the opinions Judg" 01 the
of the Legal Remembrancer and of the Advocate
High Court of
Orissa
General and to say that the Law Department are of
opinion that no special authorization is necessary to
Mudholkar J,
empower Magistrates to take cognizance under section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act.
This may be
followed until the matter is carried to the High
Court in some case, so that the confusion created
by the Orissa High Court decision reported in All
India Reporter 1951 Orissa, page 40 might be set
at rest."
This endorsement bears the signature of the appellant.
After the attention of the High Court was drawn:
to the aforesaid endorsement it caused notices to be
issued not only to the Under Secretary to the Board
of Revenue but also to the Legal Remembrancer of
Orissa to show cause way they should not be committed for contempt. Both of them showed cause.
The High Court absolved the Legal Remembrancer
but convicted the appellant and admonished him, as
already stated. It may be mentioned that both of
them had tendered apologies to the High Court. Even
so, we think that the appellant was rightly found
guilty of contempt of court and admonished as well as
required to pay the costs of the proceedings .
The point on which the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer was sought was whether a Magistrate
authorised by the District Magistrate to take cognisance of offences under s. 190, Code of Criminal Procedure, can be regarded as a Magistrate authorised by
the District Magistrate as contemplated by s. 20 of the
Cattle Trespass Act. In the case referred to in the
endorsement of the appellant, the Orissa High Court
had taken the view following the decision in Raghu
Singh v. Abdul Wahab (')that authorisation is necessary.
The decision in Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab (')was
(r) (1896) !,L.R. 23 Cal. 442.
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
I90I
_
dissented from in Budhan Mahto v. lssur Singh(') and
Dibaliar Satpathy it does not appear that this fact was brought to the ·
v.
notice of the Orissa High Court. The Legal RemembrHon'ble The
ancer to whom the matter was referred submitted a
Chief justice 6h h
d"
Judges of the
note w ic , accor mg to the High Court, was "someHigh Court of thing ambiguous and did not deal with all questionsOrissa
consequential and ancillary". In spite of that the
appellant, in his endorsement, gave a direction to the
Mudholka. J. Magistrates to igno,·e the decision of the High Court
even though that was binding on them. We have not
the least doubt that suoh a direction is a flagrant
interference with the administration of justice by
courts and a clear contempt of court. Upon this view
we dismiss the appeal.
March r5.
Appeal dismissed.
MAJOR GOP AL SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
CUSTODIAN, EVACUE.E PROPERTY, PUNJAB
(K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and
J. R. MUDJIOLKAR, JJ.)
Evacuee Property-Quasi-permanent allotment-Cancellation of
-Custodian General, powers of-Enactment vesting evacuee property in Central Government-If Custodian General still has power
to cancel allotment-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, r950
(JI of r950), ss. IO, 27 -Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, I954 (44 of r954), ss. I2, 19.
The appellants who are displaced persons from West Pakis- '
tan, were granted quasi-permanent allotment of some lands in . ·
village Raikot in 1949· On October 31, 1952, the Assistant
Custodian cancelled the allotment of 14 allottees in village
Karodian, and also cancelled the allotment of the appellants in
Raikot but allotted lands to them in village Karodian, and
allotted the lands of Raikot to other persons. The 14 allottees
of village Karodian as well as the appellants applied for review
of the orders of cancellation of itheir allotment. The application
of the 14 allottees was dismissed. They preferred a revision to
the Custodian General who cancelled the appellant's allotment
(1) (r907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 926.
•
..
-~-
~
.\
•. '