Advocate General vs Ashwani Khurana

Ripusudan Dayal, C.J.—Contempt proceedings were initiated against Ashwani Khurana, Chief Executive, M/s. K. & Co., 4-Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi-100048 on the motion having been made by the learned Advocate General, for the Contemnor having written a letter dated 13th November, 2000 to the Chief Justice of the High Court, stating that the said letter had been sent by the Contemnor whose certain matters pertaining to Sikkim Lotteries had earlier been decided by the Chief Justice and that the letter gravely scandalises the High Court with the sole objective of lowering the majesty and dignity of the Court and is also intended to influence the Chief Justice with regard to any proceedings that may be brought before the Court. Body of the letter dated 13th November, 2000, reads as under :

Reg. : Current Tender of Sikkim State Lotteries.

Respected Sir,

It is reliably learnt that the stipulation regarding the qualification of bidder to the currently operating Two States has been reduced to One State. According to the High Court proceedings in the past it is already mentioned that K & Co. should be allowed to participate in the tender. You are well aware that although we have all the requisite experience we are not currently operating any State Govt. Lottery.

Please urgently inform us whether:--

(c) Our bidding in this tender will be treated as independent/or our past relationship without intermingling the issue of a demand raised of Rs. 25 crore which (we claimed illegal) or not.

(d) Whether the Govt. will consider our bid inspite of the fact that we are currently not operating with any State Govt.

Please urgently revert to avoid any legal complication.

Yours truly, Sd/- (Ashwani Khurana) Chief Executive

In response to the notice, the Contemnor filed an affidavit dated 23rd February, 2001, tendering unconditional and unquialified apology. He further stated that the letter was intended to be sent to the Chief Minister of Sikkim (with a copy to the High Court for information), but was mistakenly addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. Thereafter, one telegram dated 15th November, 2000, which had also been received from the Contemnor was placed on the record. A copy thereof was furnished to the Contemnor. Thereupon, the Contemnor filed another affidavit dated 28th February, 2001, again tendering unconditional and unqualified apology and stating that the telegram was sent under the Contemnor''s instructions by his employee to seek consideration of the Hon''ble High Court by way of Public Interest Petition. Thereafter, another affidavit dated 13th March, 2001 was filed by the Contemnor undertaking and assuring the Court that he shall not commit any act of contempt, civil or criminal, nor shall he do any act, deed or thing that would tantamount to commission of such offence.

We have heard the learned Advocate General and also Anmole Prasad, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Contemnor. We are not at all satisfied that the letter dated 13th November, 2000 was meant for the Chief Minister. The fact that subsequently also, he sent a telegram addressed to the Chief Justice is in itself evidence of the fact that he was in the habit of addressing communication to the Chief Justice with regard to his lottery busienss and that he intentionally sent the letter dated 13th November, 2000. There could also be no justification for sending a copy of the letter dated 13th November, 2000, as alleged. in would be highly deplorable if a litigant or a prospective litigant communicates to the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court with respect to his litigation. We also do not believe his version that the telegram was sent for consideration by the High Court as a Public Interest Petition. The Contemnor must have known as a seasoned litigant, having access to competent legal advice, that in matters relating to tenders where he himself wants to make a bid, no petition lies by way of public interest and, even if he chooses to believe that such a petition lies, the Contemnor being a person not belonging to poor strata of society could file a regular petition in the usual way and not by means of a letter.

The Contemnor has, by sending letter dated 13th November, 2000 to the Chief Justice, committed criminal contempt within the meaning of Clauses (i) and (iii) of Sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He has tendered unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity. We are not inclined to accept the same. However, we give due consideration to this fact, while awarding punishment to him.

In the result, we sentence the Contemnor, Ashwani Khurana for having committed criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to simple imprisonment for seven days and also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner is allowed ten days'' time to pay the fine. in case of this failure to do so, he shall suffer further simple imprisonment for one week. We suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment for three years subject to his furnishing a undertaking within ten days on affidavit that he will not indulge.in such act or any other act amounting to contempt civil or criminal, within the aforesaid period, failing which, he shall be arrested to serve out the sentence awarded to him. in case, he furnishes the undertaking and commits breach thereof within the aforesaid period, he shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him apart from any other action for which he may be liable. in case, he does not commit breach of the undertaking within the period of three years, the sentence awarded to him shall stand remitted.