Disposed

Parbal Singh v. Padam Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Jun 2013COPC/494/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge Bench in a contempt petition found the respondent collector dead, rendering the case unproceedable. The court relied on a Supreme Court precedent regarding deliberate record manipulation, directed an order-sheet copy to the petitioner, and remanded record verification to the appropriate lower forum for the petitioner's benefit.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Collector to supply complete order sheets to petitioner; case remitted to collector's forum to verify record authenticity.

Parbal Singh Vs Padam Singh — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

COPC No. 494 of 2012 Judgment Reserved on 21.5.2013 Date of Decision 12.6. 2013 ________________________________________________________ Parbal Singh ….Petitioner Versus Padam Singh, District Collector,Sirmaur ….Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram

¶3

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

______________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Additonal Advocate General with Mr.R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _____________________________________________________________

¶5

Dev Darshan Sud, J.(oral)

¶6

This contempt petition has been instituted against the respondent on allegations of manipulating the judicial record. The respondent (District Collector), Shri Padam Singh, is dead and as such cannot be proceeded against. On the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the record of statutory proceedings has been deliberately fudged, to ascertain this fact, the record of the Collector was summoned and examined.

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶8

¶9

This contempt petition is a sequel to the orders passed by this Court in CMPMO No. 160 of 2011. In that petition, this Court had directed that:-

¶10

“2. In view of the above position, in case no such application is pending before respondent No.2, as sworn in by respondent No.2 in his affidavit, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application within a period of two weeks from today and respondent No. 2 shall decide the said application within a reasonable time after hearing both the parties.

¶11

The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. A copy of this judgment be sent to respondent No. 2 through the learned Assistant Advocate General present in the Court, for compliance.”

¶12

Further proceedings were taken as directed.

¶13

Submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which is prima facie borne out from the record, is that the order sheets, which have been filed in response with the reply, are selective and a portion of the same has been blanked out. This, of course, is a serious matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Aligarh Municipal Board and others vs. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others, AIR 1970 SC 1767 to urge:-

¶14

“5……..We have, therefore, no doubt that the Demand Inspector is guilty of contempt of court by knowingly and deliberately disobeying the order of the High Court. It was, however, contended that the sentence imposed on him is too severe. We are unable to agree. Contempt proceedings against a person who has failed to comply with the Court’s order serves a dual purpose: (1) vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct and (2) coercion to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him. The sentence imposed should effectuate

¶15

¶16

both these purposes. It must also be clearly understood in this connection that to employ a subterfuge to avoid compliance of a Court’s order about which there could be no reasonable doubt may in certain circumstances aggravate the contempt. The Demand Inspector in the present case, as is clear from his counter-affidavit and other material on the record, has attempted to employ such a subterfuge. And finally he has all through stuck to his insistence on justification without any expression or regret, leave alone apology. We have accordingly no hesitation in upholding the order against him.”

¶17

(at p. 1770) 4. This is the settled principle. Fudging and tampering the Court record cannot be tolerated and constitutes the gravest form of contempt. Since the respondent is dead, no action can be initiated against him. I do not say anything more since it might prejudice the case of the other parties to the proceedings before the Collector. Needless to add that prima facie from perusal of the record, I do not find that it has been maintained in a proper manner. I refrain myself from making any other comment.

¶18

Adverting to the judgment cited above, I was inclined to proceed with the case further, but for the fact that the respondent is dead; the case cannot be proceeded with against him. In these circumstances, if the proceedings are challenged by the petitioner herein in appropriate appellate/revisional proceedings, I direct that the learned Court/Forum shall take into consideration the record and arrive at its own finding as to whether it constitutes a true recording of the facts of proceedings as conducted. It will be open to the petitioner to institute any other or further proceedings in accordance with law so as to vindicate his rights. One more submission has been made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the

¶19

¶20

complete copy of order sheets/record maintained, subject matter of this petition, be supplied to the petitioner. I direct the Collector to do so. Petition stands disposed of. Record be returned to the State. No order as to costs.

¶21

June 12^th , 2013(ms)

¶22

(Dev Darshan Sud), Judge

Parbal Singh v. Padam Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parbal Singh v. Padam Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birbal Vs Sunil Chaudhary

Mehar Chand Shukla Vs Raja Rizvi

Pawna Devi Vs Rajiv Sharma

Rakesh Kashyap Vs Bhagwant Swaroop Shrivastava

Vijay Kumar Vs Union of India

Prem Chand Vs State