ABDUL GANI BHAT Vs CHAIRMAN,ISLAMIA COLGE.G.BRD.
Bench: G.S. SINGHVI,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, , ,
Case number: SLP(C) No.-001995-001996 / 2006
Diary number: 1499 / 2006
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. Nos.3-4 in SLP(C) Nos.1995-1996 of 2006
Abdul Gani Bhat ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Chairman, Islamia College Governing Board and others ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
These applications have been filed by the petitioner with
the following prayer:
“It is therefore prayed that the SLP 2995-96 of 2006 may be decided properly in light of the averments made herein and in light of the facts and averments made in the contempt petition 86-87 of 2009 and necessary clarifications and directions may graciously be passed.”
In Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.1995-1996 of 2006,
the petitioner had challenged order dated 21.11.2005 passed by
the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in LPA
No. 200/2005. The same was disposed of by this Court on
24.3.2006 by recording the following order:
“Heard the petitioner, who is appearing in-person.
It has been submitted that the petitioner wants to
2
argue his case in person in LPA No.200 of 2005, which is pending in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar. If such a prayer is made before the High Court, we have no doubt the same shall be considered and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear in- person.
The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of.”
In these I.As., the applicant has claimed that the
aforesaid order was defective inasmuch as the LPA was not
pending before the High Court. He has then averred that when
the order passed by this Court was placed before the High Court
through IA (C) LPWA No. 326/2006, the same was dismissed by the
Division Bench of the High Court by making derogatory
observations against him and a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed.
Thereafter, he filed Contempt Petition Nos.86-87/2009 before
this Court, which were dismissed on 22.1.2010 on the ground
that even though various allegations had been levelled against
the contemnor, no prayer was made against him.
We have heard Shri Abdul Gani Bhat, who appeared in
person and carefully perused the record. In our opinion, order
dated 24.3.2006 cannot be termed as defective because the same
was passed in the presence of the petitioner. If no matter was
pending before the High Court, the petitioner, who was present
in person should have brought it to the notice of the bench
3
which passed the order. In any case, after a time gap of almost
4 years, we do not find any valid ground much less justification
to recall that order and decide the special leave petitions
afresh.
The applications are accordingly dismissed.
........................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)
........................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 25, 2011.
4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. Nos. 3-4 in
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.86-87 of 2009 in
SLP(C) Nos. 1995-1996 of 2006
Abdul Gani Bhat ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Chairman, Islamia College Governing Board and others ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
These applications have been filed by the petitioner
seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged
contemnors.
The petitioner had challenged order dated 21.11.2005
passed by the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court
in LPA No. 200/2005 by filing Special Leave Petition Nos.1995-
1996 of 2006, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.3.2006
by recording the following order:
“Heard the petitioner, who is appearing in-person.
It has been submitted that the petitioner wants to argue his case in person in LPA No.200 of 2005, which is pending in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar. If such a prayer is made before the High Court, we have no doubt the same shall be considered and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear in- person.
5
The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of.” In these I.As., the applicant has claimed that the
aforesaid order was defective inasmuch as LPA was not pending
before the High Court. He has then averred that when the order
passed by this Court was placed before the High Court through IA
(C) LPWA No. 326/2006, the same was dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court by making derogatory observations
against him and a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. Thereafter,
he filed Contempt Petition Nos. 86-87/2009 which were dismissed
on 22.1.2010 on the ground that even though various allegations
had been levelled against the contemnor, no prayer was made
against him.
We have heard Shri Abdul Gani Bhat, who appeared in
person and carefully perused the record. In our view, there is
no valid ground much less justification for initiating
proceedings against the respondents because a similar prayer
made by him in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.86-87 of 2009 has
already been rejected.
The applications are accordingly dismissed.
........................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)
........................J.
6
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 25, 2011.
7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRLMP No.21733-21734 of 2010 in
SLP(C) Nos.1995-1996 of 2006
Abdul Gani Bhat ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Chairman, Islamia College Governing Board and others ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
These petitions have been filed by Shri Abdul Gani Bhat
for directing the Registrar of this Court to file complaint
before the appropriate forum against the respondents for having
made false statements before this Court.
The petitioner has referred to order dated 24.3.2006
passed in SLP(C) Nos. 1995-1996/2006, which were directed
against order dated 21.11.2005 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir
High Court in LPA No.200/2005. He has then averred that in the
reply filed by respondent No.2, a number of false statements
were made on the issue of payment of subsistence allowance, his
designation in the College as Physical Instructor instead of
Physical Director, Physical Education, the alleged filing of
8
dozens of cases against the college authorities and indulging in
luxury litigation. He has also pleaded that the averments
contained in paras 8 and 9 of the reply were also patently false
and misleading and has prayed that action may be initiated
against the respondents under Section 340 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
We have heard Shri Abdul Gani Bhat, who appeared in
person and carefully perused the record. In our view, there is
no valid ground much less justification for issue of a direction
to the Registrar to initiate proceedings against the respondents
by filing complaint merely because some of the statements made
in the written statement were, as per the petitioner's version,
false.
The applications are accordingly dismissed.
........................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)
........................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 25, 2011.