Jatinder Singh Pannu vs Surjit Singh and anr.

K.S. Tiwana and S.S. Dewan, JJ.

This petition under, Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the alleged detenu was filed in this Court. According to rule 10 of the Rules made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition was listed before a learned single Judge who consequently issued a roving writ for execution through a Warrant Officer appointed by this Court. The Warrant Officer made report and the respondents filed their affidavits. The detenu also filed his affidavit before the learned single Judge.

As it appears from the referring order dated 22nd July 1980, the learned single Judge has not decided the petition for writ of habeas corpus one way or the other. On the basis of facts brought to the notice of the learned single Judge through the report of the Warrant Officer and affidavits it was observed as under :

"From the report of the Warrant Officer, action may, have to be taken to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against the persons mentioned in the report and perhaps against the respondents. The person who was detained, has filed an affidavit detailing out the role played by the respondents in dealing with him. Since the action is likely to be widespread, let this petition be laid before the Division Bench (Criminal) for disposal on 2371986.

This is how this writ petition has come before this Bench for decision.

The petition for habeas corpus has not been decided by the learned single Judge. It will be after the decision of this petition, one way or the other that the question of initiating some action for criminal contempt against someone will come up for consideration. If after decision of this petition for the habeas corpus the learned Judge forms the view that action for committing criminal contempt has to be commenced then he may, in view of a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Court on its own Motion v. Kashmiri Lal and ors., AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 72, issue notice. After the observations of the Single bench the notice can also be issued by a Division Bench in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Without the decision of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, which does not involve any point of law requiring decision from a larger Bench, the matter cannot be referred to Division Bench.

From the reference order, we do not find if any question of law is involved which requires to be decided by a Division Bench.

The case, therefore, be placed before the learned Chief Justice for orders to be listed before the learned Single Judge for decision of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

We have given the tentative date for appearance of the concerned parties in this petition before the learned Single Judge as 6th August, 1986.

(JUDGMENT dated 681986.>

M.M. Punchhi, J. As desired by the Division Bench, this petition for habeas corpus is decided by formally allowing it. As perreport of the Warrant Officer,. the detenu was located by Voice inside the police station. The detenu appeared in Court and gave an affidavit detailing out the manner in which he was. arrested and has corroborated the Warrant Officer that he had responded to his call at the time of the visit of the Warrant Officer at the police station. The case of the respondents is that they do not require the detenu. Thus, all mental and physical fetters on the detenu an hereby removed.

Rule 6(1) of Contempt of Court. (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1974 reads as follows :

"6(1) Every petition. motion or reference in relation to Civil, or Criminal contempt shall, unless the Chief Justice directs it to be heard by a larger Bench, be laid for motion hearing before a Single Bench.

Explanation Nothing contained. in this subrule shall apply to proceedings initiated by the Court on its own motion..

The explanation makes me to reiterate my, earlier view part of the present order, for it seems to me that from the report of the Warrant Officer, action may have to be taken to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against the persons mentioned in the report and perhaps against the respondents. Besides, the detenu has filed an affidavit detailing out the role played by the respondents in dealing with him. Since as viewed earlier the action has to be widespread, let this petition in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case be laid before a Division Bench for initiation of contempt proceedings, more so when proceedings in such case can : only by gone into and finally the punishment also imposed by a Division Bench. It to be remembered that this Court is one and there is no distinction between Single Bench and a Division Bench so far suomotu action for contempt proceedings is concerned. A Single Bench has not to send such a case to a Division Bench only on a question of law. I am of the confirmed view that this step in the instant case would also obviate the possibility of conflict of views on contempt committed between a Single Bench and the Division Bench course not desirable when the step to be taken is to uphold the dignity of the Court.

Therefore, the papers of this case be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for onward transmission to the Division Bench for the purpose aforeindicated.