Stating that a party-in-person petitioner has made remarks “with an intention to lower the dignity” of the courts, the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday issued a notice asking him to explain why the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him.
In a 28-page judgment delivered on Tuesday, Justice M R Mengdey of the Gujarat High Court came down heavily on the petitioner for remarks made against courts in applications filed by him seeking directions to the Surat police to file an FIR in the case.
The judgment extensively quotes Bhamburkar’s remarks – made in a January 16 hearing– against the Supreme Court, Gujarat High Court as well as Magistrate courts and the judicial process, after courts have directed alternative remedy.
Asking the High Court registry to issue a notice to Bhamburkar to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him, the court also directed it to attach the video clip of the hearing with the judgment. “When this court countered the petitioner party-in-person as to whether he was making allegations against the court, he reaffirmed that he was stating merely the facts which were emerging from record… It appears that a disgruntled litigant after having failed to obtain favourable orders from the institution is out to defame the august institution,” the judgment said.
“By making the averments in the petition as well as the remarks made by the petitioner during the course of hearing before this court are made with an intention to lower the dignity of the institution at large. This conduct on the part of the petitioner is nothing short of contempt of court of not only this court but also of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well of the learned trial court,” the judgment noted.
Stating that the petitioner “appears to have assumed advisory jurisdiction unto himself over this court”, the judgment noted that the petitioner had prayed to the High Court that the Magistrate, “who has passed the impugned order be sent for training since he seems unaware of law of the land, is not only up to date with the judgments, which are over 13 years old”.
Story continues below this ad
The judgment noted that the petitioner “also displays the propensity to misread and misinterpret the directions of none less than the Hon’ble Apex Court.”
The court also opined that 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.”
Petition on buildings around Surat airport
The court order noted that Bhamburkar’s petition was based on the “failure of the police authorities to register an FIR despite clear disclosure of cognizable offences in his complaint dated January 14, 2020 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Surat.”
The complaint had alleged that several builders obtained No Objection Certificates from the Airports Authority of India by “submitting forged and fabricated documents relating to the location and coordinates of the proposed buildings, and thereafter, constructed buildings at locations substantially different from those approved, thereby committing offences,” punishable under relevant sections for forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy of the Indian Penal Code.
Story continues below this ad
The court order noted the petition had contended that “NOCs themselves stipulate that any deviation in location renders the permission void, and documents on record show lateral deviations ranging from 43 meters to 1,609 meters in multiple building complexes…”
Stating the petitioner has approached this Gujarat High Court directly without availing alternative remedy available to him, the judgment notes, “At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present petition is a classic example of the petition which is thoroughly misconceived and an abuse of process of law…”
‘Unwarranted allegations’
Public Prosecutor Hardik Dave and Assistant Public Prosecutor Himanshu Patel prayed for the petition to be dismissed with cost as it is “repetitive and successive” as the petitioner had earlier made similar prayers in applications which “came to be dismissed” by the High Court “on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy before the Magistrate”. The prosecutors also submitted that the petitioner had filed a private complaint, “wherein the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance… and the proceedings are presently pending.” The prosecutors further submitted that Bhamburkar had approached the High Court with “identical prayers”, which “contain unwarranted allegations against the concerned Judicial Magistrate”.
The court also considered the affidavit of the Airport Authority which did not mention that any forged documents were submitted before it by the builders for grant of NOC. The court also stated that the Magistrate was “right and justified in holding that no cognizable offence was made out from the facts narrated by the petitioner before it”.
Story continues below this ad
Though the petitioner’s contention seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was not accepted, the High Court noted that the Magistrate had decided to inquire into the complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC and had summoned the petitioner “for the purpose of inquiry.” “The petitioner, instead of participating in the process, has approached this court by filing a present petition,” the judgment noted.
The HC also stated, “It is also required to be noted that (prayers made) in the present petition by the petitioner were already made by him (an application) which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated September 19, 2022 and had been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated December 9, 2022.”
