‘Intention To Lower The Dignity Of The Institution’: Gujarat High Court Issues Contempt Notice To Litigant For Claiming Constitutional Courts Disregard Supreme Court Orders
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice M. R. Mengdey dismissed a party-in-person’s petition challenging a Magistrate’s refusal to direct police investigation and the decision to proceed by examining the complainant, and imposed costs of ₹25,000. Holding that the Magistrate’s course was permissible and that the petitioner had not shown which documents were forged, the court declined interference. It also issued contempt notice after the petitioner claimed that while the Supreme Court acts on public safety, other constitutional courts disregard the law.
The grievance arose from alleged deviations in construction from No Objection Certificates (NOCs) issued by the Airports Authority of India. It was alleged that builders submitted forged documents regarding WGS-84 coordinates and site elevation to obtain NOCs and thereafter constructed buildings at locations deviating between 42 meters and 1609 meters.
The petitioner had earlier approached Dumas Police Station and subsequently the Commissioner of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC. The application was filed after police found no cognizable offence. A prior writ petition was disposed of relegating the petitioner to the Magistrate. The Magistrate, upon an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, declined to order investigation but proceeded under Section 200 CrPC. The petitioner challenged this order, alleging non-registration of FIR despite disclosure of cognizable offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC.
The State opposed the petition, contending it was repetitive litigation and that cognizance had already been taken by the Magistrate.
On the core allegation of forged documents used to obtain airport NOCs, the Court noted the material before the Magistrate and the petitioner’s inability to identify the alleged forgeries: “Considering the affidavit which was filed by the Airport Authority of India… there is no averment that the builders had put forged documents and got NOC for the building construction… Even during the course of hearing of the present petition, the petitioner has miserably failed to point out which documents were forged and produced before the Airport Authority for obtaining the NOC.” It also referred to the affidavit’s description of deviations: “the buildings are constructed on significantly different WGS-84 coordinates and having different Site Elevation than what were applied for by builders during NOC application.”
The Court further recorded: “Further in Para -8 of the affidavit, it is mentioned by the Airport Authority that the NOC obtained by the builders were wrong coordinates and site elevation provided by them at the relevant point of time… Thus, nowhere in the affidavit, the Airport Authority has mentioned that any forged documents were submitted before it by the builders for grant of NOC.”
On the challenge to the Magistrate’s course of proceeding, the Court stated: “This contention raised by the petitioner demonstrates the complete lack of legal knowledge on the part of the petitioner Party-in-Person. There is nothing in law which would preclude the learned Magistrate from treating the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as complaint.” It added: “Learned Magistrate… had passed an order to examine the complainant… The magistrate has committed no wrong by treating the application submitted by the petitioner as a complaint.”
The Court also addressed the petitioner’s statements made during hearing: “[whether] the Hon'ble judges be permitted to continue the injustice being inflicted upon the citizen under the cover of alternate remedy.” “I'm sorry to say but the general opinion is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court passes orders which it is unable to get executed. Lalita Kumari for example.” “So it is rather distressing that while one constitutional court shows the proactiveness to address the issues pertaining to public safety, another constitutional court flagrantly disregards the law thereby ensuring that not even an F.I.R. is lodged.”
On that conduct, the Court recorded: “From the aforesaid it appears that a disgruntled litigant after having failed to obtain favourable orders from the institution is out to defame the august institution… [the remarks] are made with an intention to lower the dignity of the institution at large.” It then directed: “This conduct on the part of the petitioner is nothing short of contempt of Court… Therefore, a notice is directed to be issued… calling him to explain as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him.”
Finally, while rejecting the prayer seeking action against the Magistrate, the Court stated: “The petitioner herein appears to have assumed advisory jurisdiction unto himself over this Court… this Court is of the view that the petitioner Party-in-Person is more required to be imparted training of law and not the learned Magistrate. The prayer in question is, therefore, thoroughly misconceived and cannot be granted.”
The Court held: “The petition, therefore, fails as being frivolous, misconceived and abuse of principal of law and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.25000 imposed upon the petitioner Party-in-Person.”
“Therefore, a notice is directed to be issued against the petitioner Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar calling him to explain as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him. The Registry shall thereafter place the matter before the bench assigned the roster for the subject. The competency certificate issued by the Registry in favour of the petitioner Party-in-Person allowing him to appear before this Court in-person needs to be revisited.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Respondents: Mr. Hardik Dave, Public Prosecutor; Mr. H.K. Patel, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number: R/Special Criminal Application No. 8358 of 2023
Bench: Justice M. R. Mengdey
