9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cers of this Court, including the Government Pleader, and the record of this Court. Such allegations made during the course of arguments are also noted in the orders dated 20.4.2016 and 25.4.2016 passed in this revision application. It is on the proof of these allegations, the applicant wanted the reliefs claimed. The Court is, therefore, bound to ask the applicant to carry the responsibility of making such allegations by stating it on oath. The applicant is not prepared for the same and, therefore, this Court is constrained to call upon the applicant to respond to this order passed on the allegations so made. 2. The facts brought on record of this civil revision application by the applicantSatish Mahadeorao Uke, appearing in person, reflecting the history of various litigations filed by him, need to be looked into initially. 3. Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of 2015 were filed on 22.12.2014 by the complainants Shri Hruday Babulal Parate and Shri Madanlal Babulal Parate along with the accused persons, viz. Pravin Romadhar Dubey, Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis (presently, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra) and Deepak Jaising Hiranwar under Section 482 of the Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 16.12.015 on merits of the matter as well as holding that the applicant had no locus to claim the reliefs. 5. The applicant approached the Apex Court against the aforesaid judgment and order by filing the Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed on 17.8.2015 by an order passed as under : "Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person. No ground for interference is made out, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is dismissed. As a sequel to the above, interlocutory applications are disposed of." 6. The applicant then filed Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 on 21.9.2015 for review of the judgment and order 16.1.2015 passed by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. in Criminal Application No.45 of 2015. This application was dismissed by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. on 14.10.2015. 7. On 15.10.2015, the applicant filed an application for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and order dated 14.10.2015 along with all other documents, including the cover sheet of GP File - two copies. This application addressed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. was constituted to hear the said application. It is not known whether this application is pending or decided. 10. The applicant wanted a copy of the communication issued by the Registrar (JudicialI), High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai, constituting the Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. for hearing Criminal Application (APPP) No.40 of 2016. He was, therefore, required to file Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2016 before this Court to challenge the rejection of his application by an order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the Registry. The matter was listed before me on 29.03.2016. The Registrar of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur was the partyrespondent in the said civil revision application, which was allowed by setting aside the order dated 432016 refusing to grant the certified copy of the letter and directing the Registrar to issue the certified copy of the said communication within a period of eight days from the date of the order. 11. This civil revision application under subrule (i) of Rule 7 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 has been filed on 11.04.2016 by the applicant calling f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be made. He submits that the Division Bench had not permitted him to argue Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, but was permitted to argue the Pursis Stamp No.3146 of 2015 and 3386 of 2015, which are on pages 59B and 59D of this review application. He therefore, submits that it was wrong statement made before this Court that he had argued Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 and he wanted the correction of it to the effect that he had argued Pursis Stamp No.3146 of 2015 filed in Criminal Review Application No.3386 of 2015. By an order dated 20.04.2016, the petitioner was granted time to file affidavit on the two points mentioned therein instead of filing affidavit the petitioner has chosen to file a pursis bearing Stamp No.5462 of 2016 on 22.04.2016 for permission to withdraw the civil revision application on the ground that it has become infructuous. After going through the contents of the pursis, I find that certain factual averments are made, which are of serious nature assailing the record of this Court, and unless such averments are made on affidavit, it is not possible to consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of permission to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 and are related to Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis (present Chief Minister of Maharashtra); Smt. Bharti Dangre, Government Pleader; Shri B.R. Gavai, J.; Shri Prasanna B. Varale, J.; and certain persons in the Registry of this Bench, including Shri Rajandekar, the Senior Registrar, who are all related to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. [Para 3]. (iii) Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis is a party in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 and he has along with others committed a fraud on the Court. Shri Fadnavis is a client of Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Advocate Shri A.M. Sudame, who are all closely related to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. [Para 4(a)]. (iv) It is a matter of record that in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the handwritten notes of Smt. Bharti H. Dangre, Government Pleader, were secretly used by M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., before whom Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Advocate Shri A.M. Sudame are practising. It is, therefore, not proper for Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to take up the matter related to M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. [Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally on the ground that the revision application seeks direction to the Registrar of this Court (Shri Rajandekar), who is alleged to be closely related to me, I must point out that on the earlier occasion, the applicant had filed Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2016 challenging the order passed by the Registry, making the Registrar of the High Court as the partysole respondent to the revision application. The applicant claimed supply of the copy of the communication received by the Registry, constituting Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. to hear Criminal Application (APPP) No.40 of 2016, relying upon Rule 5(1) in Chapter VIII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules without making any allegations either against the sitting Judges of this Court or the officers in the Registry of this Court or assailing the record of this Court. Accordingly, I had allowed Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2016 filed by the applicant and order passed by the Registry on 432016 was set aside and the Registrar (Shri Rajandekar) was directed to supply the copy of the communication within a period of eight days to the applicant. The applicant did not raise any objection for he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made application for the grant of certified copy of the Steno Book dated 14.10.2015 in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015. The petitioner also moved application for grant of this certified copy out of turn. The applications were rejected by the Copying Section vide the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar. Copy of the said applications dated 21.10.2015 for StenoBook & order passed on it are collectively annexed herewith a AnnexureD." In respect of the Court record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the applicant has made the averments in para 2 of the pursis Stamp No.5462 of 2016 filed in this civil revision application as under : "2. In inspection, the applicant found that the Xerox of returned documents kept on the above Court's record as per order passed by the Registrar (J) on the application dated 2.11.2015 moved by the officers of the Govt. Pleader (AnnexureI) are not of the Xerox of the record which was available on the above Court's record on dated 14.10.2015 & 28.10.2015 & seen by the applicant. It shows that the record of G.P. file which was available on the Court's record on dated 14.10.2015 & 28.10.2015 & seen by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exed thereto creates an impression that the applicant wanted to allege in substance as under : (i) That the Division Bench of this Court consisting of M/s. B.R. Gavai and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. allowed Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of 2015 on 23102015 to quash the proceedings instituted by the parties therein against each other by acting on the collusion between Smt. Bharti Dangre, Government Pleader, and Shri Devendra Fadnavis, Chief Minister of Maharashtra. (ii) That the Criminal Application (APPP) No.45 of 2015 filed by the applicant for review of the judgment and order dated 23122014 passed in Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of 2015 were decided by the Division Bench consisting of Shri B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. on 1612015 to favour Shri Devendra Fadnavis, Chief Minister of Maharashtra, with whom Shri B.R. Gavai, J. is closely related. (iii) That he had filed Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. on 14.10.2015, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the Division Bench of Shri B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said election petition. The said election petition was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure on 19.08.2015. It was pending for almost 1½ years and at no point of time, the applicant, who was appearing in person, did raise any such objection of hearing of the said election petition by me on the ground that I am related to Shri Devendra Fadnavis, who is alleged to be the client of Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Shri A.M. Sudame. If the applicant was knowing the alleged fact, he should have immediately pointed it out to me with details. A plea of recusal need to be raised at the initial stage, at any rate, before the decision in the matter. If such plea had been raised at the appropriate time with the details, I could have decided whether to recuse myself from taking up the said matter. It is only on 2.04.2016 and 25.04.2016, i.e. after about 8 months of this decision in the Election Petition, when in the present revision application this Court asked the applicant to carry responsibility of the allegations made against sitting Judges, officers of the Court and in respect of the record of this Court, the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile in practice of law as a Standing Counsel of corporate or statutory bodies or authorities, may not deter taking up or dealing with the matters of such bodies or authorities as a Judge unless the subjectmatter of the litigation was handled as a professional. Day in and day out, such matters are taken up and the orders are passed either in favour or against such bodies or authorities. (ii) Many times, personal matters of lawyers regularly practising in the Court, who are the members of the Bar Association, are required to be dealt with. Merely because some such lawyer was a professional colleague while in practice may not act as a disqualification for taking up his matter, and a Judge decides it on the basis of his intimacy with such lawyer and the subjectmatter of the litigation or his conscience. (iii) The participation of lawyers in political activities or the activities of the Bar Association or in the voluntary organizations and the local bodies is phenomenal. Such lawyers frequently come before the Court as a litigant in public interest litigations to espouse or defend the common cause. The fact that such a lawyer is a regular practitioner before this Court, does not com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . from the Bombay High Court to any other High Court. Para 6 of the said writ petition being relevant, is reproduced below : "6. That, the daily Lokmat Nagpur dated 26th July 2015 published the news on the said occasion of death of Shri R.S. Gavai. While paying his condolence to late Shri R.S. Gavai, Shri Devendra Fadnavis in his condolence stated that 'I had personal relation relationship with him'. The various news items published in various news paper shows that Mr. Devendra Fadnavis visited the bungalow of respondent no.4 on this sad occasion. It shows the relations of respondent no.4 with Shri Devendra Fadnavis. That, the respondent no.4 dealt with the matter of Shri Devendra Fadnavis for quashing Criminal proceeding i.e. Criminal Application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. (APL) No.824/2014 pending against Shri Fadnavis. When the petitioner filed information/application as per the Chapter XXXIV Rule 5(i) to 5(f) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 to bring the illegal acts committed by the parties therein. The respondent no.4 taken up this matter without jurisdiction & passed unwanted remarks against the petitioner even when the petitioner filed specific pursis a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own name publicized all the aforesaid allegations on the website of tennews.in. The allegations so widely published, are reproduced below : "Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra Mr. Devendra Fadnavis is expert in Criminal Conspiracy, Misleading, Fraud etc. 1 week ago by tennews.in 0 Comments 1. Mr. Devendra is advocate & member of the bar council of Maharashtra & Goa, member of the District Bar Association Nagpur, having portfolio of Ministry of Law & Judiciary as well as Home Department. In short he know the Law very well. 2. When Devendra had personal relationships with Shri R.S. Gavai (former Government of State of Kerla, Bihar), Devendra filed one Criminal Application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. no.824/2014 before Shri B.R. Gavai J. (son of late Shri R.S. Gavai, before the death of Shri R.S. Gavai) at Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. Devendra got Charge sheet U/S 324 of I.P.C. Quashed without filing copy of charge sheet on Court's record. Devendra deliberately & knowingly not disclosed his relations of with the family member of Shri B.R. Gavai J. Devendra also shown one Madanlal Parate as a coaccused and coapplicant in the said criminal matter and also got affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court as also other constitutional institutions indulged in by an advocate. The Apex Court observed that the petition was drafted in a careless manner with meaningless and selfcontradictory pleadings consisting of clumsy allegations and irrelevant facts, giving prima facie rise to an offence of contempt of Court. The Apex Court directed the Registry to draw up appropriate proceedings for contempt and to issue notice to the petitioner therein as to why the petitioner should not be proceeded with under the Contempt of Courts Act for overstepping the limit of selfrestraint. 33. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Roshan Lal Ahuja, In Re, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 446, the Apex Court was considering the allegations made in the memorandum of writ petition and in the representation made before the President of India containing scurrilous and indecent attacks on the Court as well as on the Judges of the Court in wild, intemperate and abusive language. The Court found that the language used in the offending documents has not only the effect of scandalizing and lowering the authority of the Court in relation to judicial matters but also has the effect of substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unbridled licence. Of course "Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men", but the members of the public have to abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice and exercise their right of free criticism without malice or in any way attempting to impair the administration of justice and refrain from making any comment which tends to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters." 36. In the decision in the case of Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh and others, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 384, the Apex Court was dealing with the aspersions cast on the learned Judge of the High Court dealing with the election petition. Para 33 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced below : "33. Thereafter, the appellant as already noticed, filed a transfer petition in this Court which was dismissed on 3081993. The transfer petition like the application (supra) cast aspersions on the learned Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions and had the tendency to scandalise the Court. It was an attempt to browbeat the learned Judge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art of a person, be he a lawyer, to permit himself the liberty of scandalising a court by casting unwarranted, uncalled for and unjustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions as it amounts to an interference with the due course of administration of justice." 37. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 106, the Apex Court was concerned with the plea of recusal of the Presiding Judge to deal with the matter and the question of barring an advocate from practising before the High Court in exercise of the inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Paras 238 and 239 of the said decision being relevant, are reproduced below : "238. In Supreme Court Bar Assn. the direction prohibiting an advocate from appearing in court for a specified period was viewed as a total and complete denial of his right to practise law and the bar was considered as a punishment inflicted on him. In Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal it was seen not as punishment for professional misconduct but as a measure necessary to regulate the court's p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jesty of law and assist in the administration of justice. However, the entire conduct of the applicant as can be reflected in the present application itself would reveal that rather than having any respect for the majesty of law, he has involved time and again in making serious allegations against the sitting Judges of this Court, the Chief Minister and the Government Pleader." "12. ... It will not be out of place to mention that the father of one of us i.e. B.R. Gavai, J., late Shri R.S. Gavai was an active politician for a period of almost 60 years. If a father of a judge happens to be a politician and after the mortal remains are brought to his residence and if the politicians visit the residence to pay their last respect, is it the expectation of the applicant, that the judge concerned should ask the guards at his house to stop the visitors and politicians." "18. ... The present order along with the copies of all the relevant proceedings shall be forwarded forthwith to the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of this Court, the learned Advocate General of Maharashtra, the Chairman of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for considering as to whether anything needs to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncocted plea of recusal and indulge in the activities of benchhunting. 41. In spite of making statement before the Apex Court on 2.5.2016 for withdrawal of Writ Petition No.11825 of 2016 levelling serious allegations against a sitting Judge of this Court (Shri B.R. Gavai, J.), the applicant has thereafter chosen to approach social media to scandalize the Court and make a scurrilous attack on the sitting Judges, the Chief Minister Shri Devendra Fadnavis, the officers of the Court, including the Government Pleader and the Registrar. This is a definite act of misleading the Apex Court that henceforth no such activity shall be carried. In the absence of such representation, one does not know what would have been the fate of the Transfer Petition filed before the Apex Court. 42. The object, intent and motive behind it seems to be only to malign the image of the judiciary. The attention of the Judges is distracted by such interference in the administration of justice. Various publications by the applicant cause an embarrassment and create a distrust in the public mind as to the impartial capacity of the Judges of the Court to mete out evenhanded justice. The activities of the applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs for contempt. The applicant either will have to be taken into judicial custody pending the decision of this proceeding or can be put to terms of giving an undertaking that he shall not, during the pendency of this proceeding, institute or publish any act covered by the draft charges framed either by himself personally or through anyone else. In the decision of the Apex Court in R.K. Anand's case, cited supra, it has been held that the Court has power to disallow advocate convicted in criminal contempt from appearing in Court. The Apex Court added in para 239 of the said decision that the Court does not only have the right but it also has the obligation cast upon it to protect itself and save the purity of its proceedings from being polluted in any way and to that end bar the malefactor from appearing before the Courts for an appropriate period of time. 45. In terms of Rule 5 in Part II of the Rules to regulate proceedings for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this order can constitute an information for taking suo motu action for contempt of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and it will have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
