TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (4) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs pending before the Nyaya Panchayat, Jokha Khas, District Deoria. 2. The relevant facts are these. On September 2, 1963, Yashoda, son of Raj Kumar, filed a complaint before the Nyaya Panchayat, Jokha Khas, against Jagdeo, Mahabir and Laxmi alleging that he had been abused and belaboured and his property worth Rs. 40 damaged. On September 10, 1963, the Nyaya Panchayat assembled and evidence was led before it. The case was adjourned to December 25, 1963. On October 11, 1963, Mahabir, accused, made an application under Section 85 of the U P. Panchayat Raj Act. 1947, to S. D. M., Deoria, to transfer the proceedings on the ground that the complainant Yashoda was father of Bunna Prasad, Sarpanch of Nyaya Panchayat, Jokha Khas. On November 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at "writ petition has been admitted and a stay order has been issued. But notwithstanding my informing the Panchayat Adalat of that, I am not getting any hearing there, and when an application is made there, it is not entertained" He prayed that the Panchayat Adalat be directed to postpone proceedings pending the receipt of the stay order. He produced the telegram received from the Advocate before the S. D. M In the affidavit accompanying the application, however, no mention was made about Mahabir having informed the Panchayat Adalat of the stay order or the fact that the order and the application was not being entertained by the Adalat. It happened that the S. D. M. was absent on December 23, 1963, and papers were put up before Shri S. K. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed: "I make oath and say that in the above case I have filed a writ petition in the High Court, that it has been admitted, and that proceedings in the case have been stayed by the High Court." 6. We looked at this so-called affidavit and found that it has not been sworn to before any person authorised to administer oaths. 7. On May 21, 1964, Mahabir filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, against the five appellants and S. K. Srivastava, A. S. D. M. The main allegation, apart from reciting the facts which we have already detailed above, was that "in spite of the knowledge of the interim stay dated 20th December, 1963 passed by the Hon'ble High Court the Sarpanch, the Opposite Party....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s statement, stated that he had told Mahabir to bring the affidavit on a good quality paper of full size, and Mahabir thereupon told him that he would present whatever he had. According to him, the Panches did not tell Mahabir that his affidavit was not proper; they, however, told him to get it verified in Tehsil and that it should be duly sealed. 8. The High Court, on examination of the evidence, came to the conclusion that it was the Sarpanch who had initially declared that the affidavit of the applicant was not proper and that the latter should file a proper affidavit in support of his allegations, though the Sarpanch had admitted in his deposition that he had no authority to tell Mahabir that his affidavit was not proper. It appeared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received from his counsel at Allahabad saying that the High Court had already stayed the proceedings before the Nyaya Panchayat. But the Panches did nothing of the kind. The action of the Nyaya Panches in not doing so was obviously not bona fide and amounts to wilful disobedience of the High Court's order." 9. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Chart, says that no contempt of court has been established because a Court is entitled not to act on an application which is not accompanied by an affidavit properly sworn to or a certified copy of the order. He urges that the Nyaya Panchayats exercised judicial powers and, even if the Panches erred in not staying proceedings, before finding them guilty of contempt of court it should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld guilty of contempt of court for disobeying the order. 11. The question then arises whether the Sarpanch and the Panches had knowledge of the existence of the order of the High Court dated December 20, 1963 The only material before them was the application dated December 25, 1963, which was not supported by any affidavit sworn to before a person authorised to administer oaths. Further, the application did not contain the date of the order; even a copy of the telegram was not attached to the application; and the application seems to have been made after the proceedings on that date had commenced and evidence taken. We are unable to appreciate how on this material the bona fides of the Panches can be doubted if they refused to accept the....