TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttack on the sitting Judges, the officers of this Court, including the Government Pleader, and the record of this Court. Such allegations made during the course of arguments are also noted in the orders dated 20.4.2016 and 25.4.2016 passed in this revision application. It is on the proof of these allegations, the applicant wanted the reliefs claimed. The Court is, therefore, bound to ask the applicant to carry the responsibility of making such allegations by stating it on oath. The applicant is not prepared for the same and, therefore, this Court is constrained to call upon the applicant to respond to this order passed on the allegations so made. 2. The facts brought on record of this civil revision application by the applicantSatish Mahadeorao Uke, appearing in person, reflecting the history of various litigations filed by him, need to be looked into initially. 3. Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of 2015 were filed on 22.12.2014 by the complainants Shri Hruday Babulal Parate and Shri Madanlal Babulal Parate along with the accused persons, viz. Pravin Romadhar Dubey, Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis (presently, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra) and Deepak Jaisin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation was dismissed by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. by its judgment and order dated 16.12.015 on merits of the matter as well as holding that the applicant had no locus to claim the reliefs. 5. The applicant approached the Apex Court against the aforesaid judgment and order by filing the Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed on 17.8.2015 by an order passed as under : "Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person. No ground for interference is made out, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is dismissed. As a sequel to the above, interlocutory applications are disposed of." 6. The applicant then filed Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 on 21.9.2015 for review of the judgment and order 16.1.2015 passed by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. in Criminal Application No.45 of 2015. This application was dismissed by the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. on 14.10.2015. 7. On 15.10.2015, the applicant filed an application for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... constitution of Bench to hear this application. Accordingly, as per the communication received from the Registrar (JudicialI), High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai, the Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. was constituted to hear the said application. It is not known whether this application is pending or decided. 10. The applicant wanted a copy of the communication issued by the Registrar (JudicialI), High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai, constituting the Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. for hearing Criminal Application (APPP) No.40 of 2016. He was, therefore, required to file Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2016 before this Court to challenge the rejection of his application by an order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the Registry. The matter was listed before me on 29.03.2016. The Registrar of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur was the partyrespondent in the said civil revision application, which was allowed by setting aside the order dated 432016 refusing to grant the certified copy of the letter and directing the Registrar to issue the certified copy of the said communication within a period of eight days from the date of the order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order on 25.04.2016 as under : " Shri S.M. Uke, the petitioner appearing in person submits that in the order dated 20.04.2016 passed by this Court dictated in open court, certain corrections are required to be made. He submits that the Division Bench had not permitted him to argue Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, but was permitted to argue the Pursis Stamp No.3146 of 2015 and 3386 of 2015, which are on pages 59B and 59D of this review application. He therefore, submits that it was wrong statement made before this Court that he had argued Criminal Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 and he wanted the correction of it to the effect that he had argued Pursis Stamp No.3146 of 2015 filed in Criminal Review Application No.3386 of 2015. By an order dated 20.04.2016, the petitioner was granted time to file affidavit on the two points mentioned therein instead of filing affidavit the petitioner has chosen to file a pursis bearing Stamp No.5462 of 2016 on 22.04.2016 for permission to withdraw the civil revision application on the ground that it has become infructuous. After going through the contents of the pursis, I find that certain factual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in this revision application on 20.04.2016 and 25.04.2016 travel beyond the subjectmatter of the revision [Paras 2 and 6]. (ii) The issues reflected in the orders dated 20.04.2016 and 25.04.2016 relate to manipulation of the record in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 and are related to Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis (present Chief Minister of Maharashtra); Smt. Bharti Dangre, Government Pleader; Shri B.R. Gavai, J.; Shri Prasanna B. Varale, J.; and certain persons in the Registry of this Bench, including Shri Rajandekar, the Senior Registrar, who are all related to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. [Para 3]. (iii) Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis is a party in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 and he has along with others committed a fraud on the Court. Shri Fadnavis is a client of Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Advocate Shri A.M. Sudame, who are all closely related to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. [Para 4(a)]. (iv) It is a matter of record that in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the handwritten notes of Smt. Bharti H. Dangre, Government Pleader, were secretly used by M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and requested for taking appropriate action and placing all the matters of the applicant before the another Bench. [Para 6]. 17. So far as the claim of the applicant for recusal by me to hear and decide this matter finally on the ground that the revision application seeks direction to the Registrar of this Court (Shri Rajandekar), who is alleged to be closely related to me, I must point out that on the earlier occasion, the applicant had filed Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2016 challenging the order passed by the Registry, making the Registrar of the High Court as the partysole respondent to the revision application. The applicant claimed supply of the copy of the communication received by the Registry, constituting Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. to hear Criminal Application (APPP) No.40 of 2016, relying upon Rule 5(1) in Chapter VIII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules without making any allegations either against the sitting Judges of this Court or the officers in the Registry of this Court or assailing the record of this Court. Accordingly,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d below : "7[a] On 20.10.2016 when the order dated 14.10.2015 passed in the Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015 came to be uploaded on Official Website of Bombay High Court, the petitioner found something mismatching & difference in the order passed in the Court & the uploaded order. So, the petitioner on 21.10.2015 made application for the grant of certified copy of the Steno Book dated 14.10.2015 in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015. The petitioner also moved application for grant of this certified copy out of turn. The applications were rejected by the Copying Section vide the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar. Copy of the said applications dated 21.10.2015 for StenoBook & order passed on it are collectively annexed herewith a AnnexureD." In respect of the Court record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the applicant has made the averments in para 2 of the pursis Stamp No.5462 of 2016 filed in this civil revision application as under : "2. In inspection, the applicant found that the Xerox of returned documents kept on the above Court's record as per order passed by the Registrar (J) on the application dated 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Writ Petition Stamp No.20322 of 2015. The applicant was, therefore, required to carry the responsibility of alleging and proving the fact that the issues involved in this revision application are the same issues which are involved in Writ Petition Stamp No.20322 of 2015. 21. Reading the entire averments made in this civil revision application and the documents annexed thereto creates an impression that the applicant wanted to allege in substance as under : (i) That the Division Bench of this Court consisting of M/s. B.R. Gavai and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. allowed Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of 2015 on 23102015 to quash the proceedings instituted by the parties therein against each other by acting on the collusion between Smt. Bharti Dangre, Government Pleader, and Shri Devendra Fadnavis, Chief Minister of Maharashtra. (ii) That the Criminal Application (APPP) No.45 of 2015 filed by the applicant for review of the judgment and order dated 23122014 passed in Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of 2015 were decided by the Division Bench consisting of Shri B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. on 1612015 to favour Shri Devendra Fad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttack on the persons of the sitting Judges of this Court, the officers of this Court, including the Government Pleader, and the Registrar, and to assail the record of this Court, which is presumed to be sacrosanct. 23. The applicant had filed Election Petition No.1 of 2014 challenging the election of Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis in this Court and I was designated as a Judge by the Hon'ble Chief Justice to decide the said election petition. The said election petition was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure on 19.08.2015. It was pending for almost 1½ years and at no point of time, the applicant, who was appearing in person, did raise any such objection of hearing of the said election petition by me on the ground that I am related to Shri Devendra Fadnavis, who is alleged to be the client of Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Shri A.M. Sudame. If the applicant was knowing the alleged fact, he should have immediately pointed it out to me with details. A plea of recusal need to be raised at the initial stage, at any rate, before the decision in the matter. If such plea had been raised at the appropri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....timacy with the party/parties to a lis before him, his perception about conflict of interest in taking up the matter, and his own conscience. Such decision does not depend upon the dictates of lawyers or litigants. There can be numerous such cases, where the question of recusal arises, some of which can be broadly cited as under : (i) The relations between the lawyers and their clients are always considered to be professional. While in practice of law as a Standing Counsel of corporate or statutory bodies or authorities, may not deter taking up or dealing with the matters of such bodies or authorities as a Judge unless the subjectmatter of the litigation was handled as a professional. Day in and day out, such matters are taken up and the orders are passed either in favour or against such bodies or authorities. (ii) Many times, personal matters of lawyers regularly practising in the Court, who are the members of the Bar Association, are required to be dealt with. Merely because some such lawyer was a professional colleague while in practice may not act as a disqualification for taking up his matter, and a Judge decides it on the basis of his intimacy with such l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders dated 2042016 and 2542016, the applicant has adopted the same modus operandi of withdrawal of this revision as infructuous by levelling serious allegations in the pursis Stamp No.5462 of 2016. Thus, prima facie, the applicant is indulged in the activities of abusing the process of Court with an ulterior motive. 27. I have called from the office a copy of Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 filed by the applicant claiming the relief of transfer of Shri B.R. Gavai, J. from the Bombay High Court to any other High Court. Para 6 of the said writ petition being relevant, is reproduced below : "6. That, the daily Lokmat Nagpur dated 26th July 2015 published the news on the said occasion of death of Shri R.S. Gavai. While paying his condolence to late Shri R.S. Gavai, Shri Devendra Fadnavis in his condolence stated that 'I had personal relation relationship with him'. The various news items published in various news paper shows that Mr. Devendra Fadnavis visited the bungalow of respondent no.4 on this sad occasion. It shows the relations of respondent no.4 with Shri Devendra Fadnavis. That, the respondent no.4 dealt with the matter of Shri Devendra Fadnavis for quashing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner proposes to unconditionally withdraw Civil Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 filed by him before the High Court and that this Court could record that submission leaving it open to the High Court to dismiss the said petition as withdrawn by passing a formal order on the subject. We record the submission made at the Bar and leave it open to the High Court to dismiss the writ petition as withdraw unconditionally." 30. Immediately thereafter on or about 10th May, 2016, the applicant has in his own name publicized all the aforesaid allegations on the website of tennews.in. The allegations so widely published, are reproduced below : "Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra Mr. Devendra Fadnavis is expert in Criminal Conspiracy, Misleading, Fraud etc. 1 week ago by tennews.in 0 Comments 1. Mr. Devendra is advocate & member of the bar council of Maharashtra & Goa, member of the District Bar Association Nagpur, having portfolio of Ministry of Law & Judiciary as well as Home Department. In short he know the Law very well. 2. When Devendra had personal relationships with Shri R.S. Gavai (former Government of State of Kerl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Devendra Fadnavis and others involved therein. To, Respected all of U From, Adv. Satish Uke Nagpur440027. Mob.No.09373103123." 31. Thereafter also, on 2152016, the applicantSatish Uke has publicized in his own name, the following allegations on the "Facebook" : 32. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India and another, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 255, the Apex Court was concerned with the public interest litigation filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India making intentional mudslinging against advocates, Supreme Court as also other constitutional institutions indulged in by an advocate. The Apex Court observed that the petition was drafted in a careless manner with meaningless and selfcontradictory pleadings consisting of clumsy allegations and irrelevant facts, giving prima facie rise to an offence of contempt of Court. The Apex Court directed the Registry to draw up appropriate proceedings for contempt and to issue notice to the petitioner therein as to why the petitioner should not be proceeded with under the Contempt of Courts Act for overstepping the limit of selfres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the courts generally in disrepute or attribute motives to the Judges rendering the judgment. Perversity, calculated to undermine the judicial system and the prestige of the court, cannot be permitted for otherwise the very foundation of the judicial system is bound to be undermined and weakened and that would be bad not only for the preservation of rule of law but also for the independence of judiciary. Liberty of free expression is not to be confused with a licence to make unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the Judges or the courts in relation to judicial matters. No system of justice can tolerate such an unbridled licence. Of course "Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men", but the members of the public have to abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice and exercise their right of free criticism without malice or in any way attempting to impair the administration of justice and refrain from making any comment which tends to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters." 36. In the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dministration of justice and made in good faith, in proper language, do not attract any punishment for contempt of court. However, when from the criticism a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute the courts must bestir themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law. The appellant, has, undoubtedly committed contempt of court by the use of objectionable and intemperate language. No system of justice can tolerate such unbridled licence on the part of a person, be he a lawyer, to permit himself the liberty of scandalising a court by casting unwarranted, uncalled for and unjustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions as it amounts to an interference with the due course of administration of justice." 37. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 106, the Apex Court was concerned with the plea of recusal of the Presiding Judge t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....save the purity of its proceedings from being polluted in any way and to that end bar the malefactor from appearing before the courts for an appropriate period of time." 38. While dealing with the question of recusal by Shri B.R. Gavai, J. to hear Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. has made the observations against the applicantShri Satish Uke in paras 10, 12 and 18 in the judgment dated 14102015 as under : "10. The present applicant before us happens to be a lawyer and member of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. As an officer of the Court, it is lawyer's duty to uphold the majesty of law and assist in the administration of justice. However, the entire conduct of the applicant as can be reflected in the present application itself would reveal that rather than having any respect for the majesty of law, he has involved time and again in making serious allegations against the sitting Judges of this Court, the Chief Minister and the Government Pleader." "12. ... It will not be out of place to mention that the father of one of us i.e. B.R. Gavai, J., late Shri R.S. Gavai was an active ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty as a lawyer. Prima facie, the applicant himself is the lawyer and the litigant. 40. There is a definite, deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt on the part of the applicant, which is discernible to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or to tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Repeatedly filing fake, frivolous and vexatious cases with the allegations to scandalize the Court, the officers of the Court, and mudslinging the record of the Court, is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. There is a definite act of browbeating the Court to obtain the favourable orders, and wherever the attempt remains unsuccessful, to raise a false and concocted plea of recusal and indulge in the activities of benchhunting. 41. In spite of making statement before the Apex Court on 2.5.2016 for withdrawal of Writ Petition No.11825 of 2016 levelling serious allegations against a sitting Judge of this Court (Shri B.R. Gavai, J.), the applicant has thereafter chosen to approach social media to scandalize the Court and make a scurrilous attack on the sitting Judges, the Chief Minister Shri Devendra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lawyers, and the Registrar in the Bench at Nagpur of the Bombay High Court. The allegations are made with the object, intent and motive of maligning the reputation of the Judicial Officers resulting in interference in the course of justice and the administration of law by the Courts, which amounts to contempt of Court. 44. The applicant has shown the tendency of continuing with such acts of contempt, as are reflected in the draft charges. The applicant has overstepped the limits of being the officer of this Court and as a lawyer appearing in person, he does not hold any wider protection while committing an act of contempt. This Court cannot remain a silent spectator and a stern action prohibiting such acts will have to be taken during the pendency of the proceedings for contempt. The applicant either will have to be taken into judicial custody pending the decision of this proceeding or can be put to terms of giving an undertaking that he shall not, during the pendency of this proceeding, institute or publish any act covered by the draft charges framed either by himself personally or through anyone else. In the decision of the Apex Court in R.K. Anand's case, cited supra, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e contemnor, is restrained from instituting any proceeding either himself or through anyone else to perpetuate the act of contempt of Court alleged in the draft charges framed in this order, and/or to approach any public communication system, including the newspaper and the media for publication of the allegations covered by the draft charges framed in this order. (5) The Registry of this Court in the Principal Bench and the other Benches of this Court is directed not to entertain any litigation at the instance of the Satish Mahadeorao Uke involving the Registry of this Court, the sitting Judges of this Court, and other officers of this Court, including any lawyers practising in this Court, without an application for leave to institute such proceedings filed in this proceeding for contempt of Court. If such application is made, the office shall place the matter either before Hon'ble the Chief Justice if the matter is pending with him or before the appropriate Division Bench seized of the matter of contempt for passing appropriate orders. (6) It is made clear that the Registry of this Court is not prevented from entertaining any petition, application, etc., at ....