Dibakah Satpathy v. Honble the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of Orissa

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 institu-tion of contempt proceedings against the appellant was the circulation of the view of the Legal Remembr-i96z ancer and the Advocate-General to the District D.b k - tp th Magistrates o f t h e N ort h ern D, iv1s10n ' ' o f 0 nssa ' d a t e d ' a "' 5 a y 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 General and to say that the Law Department are of Orissa opinion that no special authorization is necessary to Mudholkar J, empower Magistrates to take cognizance under sec-tion 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 com-mitted 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 Re-membrancer was sought was whether a Magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate to take cogni-sance of offences under s. 190, Code of Criminal Proce-dure, 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.

I90I _ dissented from in and Budhan Mahto v. lssur Singh(') Dibaliar Satpathy it does not appear that this fact was brought to the

v. notice of the Orissa High Court. The Legal Remembr-Hon'ble The ancer to whom the matter was referred submitted a Chief justice 6-note w h ic h , accor d" mg to the High Court, was "some-Judges of the High Court of thing ambiguous and did not deal with all questions-

Orissa 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.

Appeal dismissed.

MAJOR GOP AL SINGH AND OTHERS

March r5. 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 pro-perty 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 Re-habilitation) 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.