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.