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
252016 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 Fadnavis, the officers of the Court, including the
Government Pleader and the Registrar. This is a definite act of
misleading the Apex Court that henceforth no such activity shall be
carried. In the absence of such representation, one does not know
what would have been the fate of the Transfer Petition filed before
the Apex Court.
42. The object, intent and motive behind it seems to be only
to malign the image of the judiciary. The attention of the Judges is
distracted by such interference in the administration of justice.
Various publications by the applicant cause an embarrassment and
create a distrust in the public mind as to the impartial capacity of
the Judges of the Court to mete out evenhanded justice. The
activities of the applicant are posing a real and imminent threat to
the purity of the Court proceedings. The allegations made are
affront to the majesty of law and offend the dignity of the Court.
43. In the light of the facts of this case, and the law laid down
by the Apex Court, I propose to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to frame the
following draft charges against the applicantSatish Mahadeorao
Uke for the act of the contempt of Court :
(1) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have instituted
various civil and criminal proceedings in this Court,
against the sitting Judges of this Court, the officers of this
Court, including lawyers and the Registrar, as are pointed
out in this order, which are frivolous and vexatious and
thereby you have committed an act of abuse of process of
the Court, amounting to contempt of Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.26 OF 2016
Satish Mahadeorao Uke,
Versus
The Registrar,
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Nagpur,
Nagpur. ... NonApplicant
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : 6TH JUNE, 2016
Citation:2016(4) MHLJ 406
1. This revision application has been filed to seek copies of
the record of C.A. No.U3733/E122 R.No.122 dated 442016,
which, according to the applicant, was filed in Criminal Application
(APPP) No.1081 of 2015 by the office of the Government Pleader.
Normally, the application would either be allowed or dismissed for
the reasons to be stated in the order to be passed. There would
also not be any objection for the Court if the applicant wanted to
withdraw the revision application. This could have been permitted
by this Court if it had been a simple revision application without
making any serious allegations assailing the record of this Court
and without mudslinging the sitting Judges and the officers of this
Court. The revision application along with the documents and
pursis on record contain all sorts of wild allegations amounting to
scurrilous attack 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 2042016 and 2542016 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
3. Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of
2015 were filed on 22122014 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 Jaising Hiranwar under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing the countercases, viz. Crime
No.252 of 1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 448, 324, 336
and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and Crime No.253 of 1991
under Sections 324, 294, 506(b), and 427 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, in which the applicant Nos.1 and 2 were the
accused, filed by them against each other on 761991. The
Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. allowed
the said applications on 23122014 and quashed the proceedings
by consent of parties on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab,
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466.
4. The applicantSatish Mahadeorao Uke was not the party
to both the aforesaid applications, but filed Criminal Application
No.45 of 2015, claiming the reliefs as under :
4
“1. Take cognizance of this application to conduct enquiry
u/s 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. And suo motu criminal
contempt of court action. OR if Hon'ble Court thinks, this
instant application may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
Justice of Bombay High Court for appropriate orders.
2. Recall the common order dated 23.12.2014 passed in
Original Criminal Application (APL) 824/2014 (Hruday
Kumar and others vs. State of Maharashtra).
3. Recall the common order dated 23.12.2014 passed in
Original Criminal Application (APL) 825/2014 (Deepak
Hiranwar and others vs. State of Maharashtra).
4. Examine legality, propriety and illegality of the order
and the conduct of the parties in obtaining order including
office objections.
5. Suitable action under Section 195 read with 340 of
Criminal Procedure Code be proceeded against the
concerned parties and concerned Advocates therein
including Government Pleaders.
6. Initiate suo motu criminal contempt action under the
provisions of Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215
of the Constitution of India against the concerned parties
and concerned Advocates including Government Pleaders.
OR
In the alternative the said proceeding may kindly be
forwarded to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Bombay High
Court, Fort, Mumbai.
7. Grant any other relief to which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the
case.”
The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Division Bench of
M/s. B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. by its judgment and
5
order dated 1612015 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 1782015 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 2192015 for review of the judgment
and order 1612015 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 14102015.
7. On 15102015, the applicant filed an application for
obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and order
6
dated 14102015 along with all other documents, including the
cover sheet of GP File – two copies. This application addressed to
the Additional Registrar of the High Court was processed by the
office, and ultimately by speaking order dated 28102015 passed
by the Deputy Registrar (Shri R.R. Rathi), the prayer for supply of
certified copy of the cover sheet of GP File was rejected.
8. The applicant filed Civil Writ Petition No.6195 of 2015
before this Court containing the prayer clauses 2, 3 and 4, which
are reproduced below :
“2] Direct the Registry not to return original record –
handwritten notes with the signature of Government
Pleader on it available in Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081/2015 against their powers under Bombay High
Court Appellate Side Rules 1960.
3] Direct the Registry to issue Certified Copies to the
petitioner from same original record – handwritten notes
with the signature of Government Pleader on it available in
Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015, on receipt of
fresh application from the petitioner.
4] Direct the respondent to keep same original record –
handwritten notes with the signature of Government
Pleader on it available in Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081/2015 as it is till further orders of this Hon'ble
court.”
The Registrar of the High Court, Bench at Nagpur was the only
partyrespondent. The petition was disposed of by the Division
Bench of this Court consisting of M/s. B.P. Dharmadhikari and V.M.
Deshpande, JJ. on 23112015, and the order is reproduced below :
“ Shri Uke, petitioner in person, submits that due to
subsequent events, challenge as raised is rendered
infructuous. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw with
liberty to make further grievance, if any, before appropriate
forum.
This Court has not still issued notice to the respondent.
As such, we dispose of the writ petition as having become
infructuous.
Needless to mention that if any grievance is open in
future for making, it is always open for the petitioner to
make the same in accordance with law.”
9. On 1112016, the applicant filed Criminal Application
(APPP) No.40 of 2016 for grant of leave to file an appeal against
the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in Criminal Review
Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. It was forwarded to the
Principal Seat of this Court at Mumbai for 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 432016 passed by the Registry. The
matter was listed before me on 2932016. 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.
11. This civil revision application under subrule (i) of
Rule 7 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 has
been filed on 1142016 by the applicant calling for the record of
C.A. No. U3733/E122 R. No.122 dated 442016 and to direct the
Registrar to issue copies of the said record as was sought by the
applicant in the said application dated 442016. According to the
applicant, appearing in person, the said record was filed by the
office of Government Pleader in Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081 of 2015, which was decided on 14102015 by the
Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
12. On 2042016, when this civil revision application was
listed before me, the following order was passed :
“ The applicant, appearing in person, has urged
before this Court that on 14102015, he was present before
the Division Bench presided over by M/s. B.R. Gavai and
Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., and had argued Criminal Review
Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. He submits that the
judgment, which is placed on record on page 40 of this civil
revision application, consisting of 18 pages, was not
delivered in the open Court, but some other order was
passed in his presence. He, therefore, seeks time to file an
affidavit stating the following two things :
(i) that the judgment dated 14102015 in Criminal
Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 was not
passed in his presence in the open Court, and
(ii) that th exact order, which, according to him, was
passed in the aforesaid matter by the Division Bench.
Hence, put up this matter on 2542016.”
13. The applicant sought time to file an affidavit on the
aforestated two points. Thereafter, this civil revision application
was listed before this Court on 2542016. Instead of filing
affidavit, the applicant at that time invited my attention to the
pursis stamp No.5462 of 2016, which he had filed on 2242016
seeking withdrawal of the revision application on the ground that
he had made a representation/complaint to the Hon'ble President
of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Governor of
Maharashtra State, and Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High
Court, which makes the demand of the application for the certified
copies of the record infructuous. He, therefore, claimed for
withdrawal of the application.
14. This Court passed an order on 2542016 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 averments are made, which are of serious
nature assailing the record of this Court, and unless such
averments are made on affidavit, it is not possible to
consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of permission
to withdraw the revision application.
At this stage, Shri Uke, submits that he has filed
Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 which is pending for
adjudication before the Principal Bench of this Court at
Mumbai. He submits that the issues which are raised in this
revision application have also been raised in the said writ
petition which is pending. He therefore, seeks exemption
from filing affidavit and seeks permission to withdraw this
revision application. It is not possible to accept such prayer
orally and the petitioner is therefore, permitted to file an
affidavit in this Court stating all these facts along with the
copy of the Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 which is said to
be pending before the Principal Bench of this Court at
Mumbai.
Shri Uke, therefore, seeks time in this matter till
04.05.2016.
Put up this matter on 04.05.2016.”
The matter was accordingly listed before this Court on 452016.
The applicant, appearing in person, remained absent, but placed on
record the pursis stamp No.5811 of 2016.
15. In the pursis stamp No.5811 of 2016 filed on 3042016,
the applicant states that the orders dated 2042016 and
2542016, reproduced earlier, are passed beyond the
subjectmatter of the revision and the application has already been
moved before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Hon'ble
Chief Justice of Bombay High Court with a request for appropriate
action and placing the matters of the applicant before another
Bench. After perusal of the pursis, the matter was kept at
2.30 p.m. yesterday, as the applicant was absent. Again at 2.30
p.m. yesterday, the applicant remained absent, and, therefore, the
matter was kept on 552016. The applicant remained absent.
Hence, the matter was closed for orders.
16. Perusal of the pursis Stamp No.5811 of 2016 shows that
the applicant claims recusal by me to hear and decide this revision
application containing the allegations, which are in substance
extracted below :
(i) This revision has been filed only for issuance of
copies of the documents asked for consisting of record of
C.A. No.U3733/E122 R.No.122 dated 442016, but the
orders passed by this Court in this revision application on
2042016 and 2542016 travel beyond the
subjectmatter of the revision [Paras 2 and 6].
(ii) The issues reflected in the orders dated 2042016
and 2542016 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 B. Varale, JJ.,
before whom Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande,
Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Advocate
Shri A.M. Sudame are practising. It is, therefore, not
proper for Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to take up the matter
related to M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
[Para 4(b)].
(v) Smt. Bharti H. Dangre has appeared for
Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis in Election Petition
No.1 of 2014 before Shri R.K. Deshpande, J., and in
various matters Smt. B.H. Dangre, Government Pleader,
has appeared on behalf of the State Government, wherein
Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri
Mohan Sudame, and Advocate Shri A.M. Sudame have
appeared. [Paras 4(c) and 4(d)].
(vi) It is a matter of record that in Criminal Application
(APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the officials of the Registry of
this Court are involved regarding manipulation of record,
and the Registry is headed and controlled by Senior
Registrar Shri Rajandekar, who is related to Shri R.K.
Deshpande, J., and it is, therefore, improper for him to
take the matter relating to the Registry.
[Paras 4(e) and 4(h)].
(vii) It is seen that Senior Advocate Shri K.H.
Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame and Advocate
Shri A.M. Sudame have appeared for Shri Devendra
Gangadhar Fadnavis and have relations with
Shri Fadnavis in any manner, and it is, therefore,
improper for Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to take up any
matter relating to Shri Fadnavis and it was improper for
Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to hear and decide Election
Petition No.1 of 2014 challenging the election of
Shri Fadnavis. [Para 4(f)].
(viii) As per the record, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. has
worked in the Division Bench with Shri B.R. Gavai, J., and
it is, therefore, improper for him to take up any matter in
which Shri B.R. Gavai, J. is involved. [Para 4(g)].
(ix) The orders dated 2042016 and 2542016 seem to
have been passed to put the applicant in a difficult
situation with intention to take harsh action, which may
involve the action for contempt of Court, that too without
the authority of the investigation in the issues relating to
manipulation of record that amount to criminal offences.
However, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. cannot do this because
for the reasons already stated and also that the Senior
Registrar Shri Rajandekar is his relative. [Para 4(h)].
(x) The applicant has already moved an application 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, I had
allowed Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2016 filed by the
applicant and order passed by the Registry on 432016 was set
aside and the Registrar (Shri Rajandekar) was directed to supply
the copy of the communication within a period of eight days to the
applicant. The applicant did not raise any objection for hearing of
the matter by me on the ground that the Registrar Shri Rajandekar
is my relative and he was benefited by the order of this Court.
18. As per the assignment in the roster, all the revision
applications challenging the orders passed by the Registrar of this
Court or his subordinate officers are required to be dealt with by
this Court and day in and day out the orders passed by the
Registrar in his official capacity are set aside and in such matters,
the question of personal relations hardly comes in the way when
the Registrar acts in his official capacity. The Registrar (Shri
Rajandekar) has not been joined in his personal capacity as a
partyrespondent, and the allegation is made against him regarding
manipulation of the record of Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081 of 2015. Even during the course of hearing of this civil
revision application on 2 – 3 occasions, the applicant did not raise
any such objection of my personal relations with the Registrar of
this Court Shri Rajandekar. In fact, I may state here that there is
not even a single order placed on record which is passed or signed
by Shri Rajandekar in his capacity as a Registrar of this Court. The
orders are passed by his subordinate officers and the Registrar
being head of the administration in the Bench at Nagpur, the
applicant has joined him in his official capacity and not by his
personal name. The question of recusal on my part to make an
exception of dealing with such assignment on this count does not at
all arise.
19. In the orders dated 2042016 and 2542016 passed in
this civil revision application (reproduced in paras 12 and 14
above), the arguments advanced by the applicant before this Court
are reproduced. In the pursis Stamp No.5811 of 2016, a statement
is made by the applicant in para 6 that the applicant does not agree
with the observations made by this Court in the said orders. This is
prima facie a false statement, and the applicant himself had invited
my attention to the averments made in para 7[a] of this civil
revision application, which are extracted 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
2.11.2015 moved by the officers of the Govt. Pleader
(AnnexureI) are not of the Xerox of the record which was
available on the above Court's record on dated 14.10.2015 &
28.10.2015 & seen by the applicant.
It shows that the record of G.P. file which was available
on the Court's record on dated 14.10.2015 & 28.10.2015 &
seen by the applicant in original form came to be changed by
some different but similar record. That, some other but similar
record kept on court's record shown as returned to the Govt.
Pleader officials & Xerox of which are kept on the Court record.
This act is committed in appeal period against the Rule 1
Chapter XV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,
1960. Copy of the inspection application dated 21.4.2016
annexed herewith as AnnexureP.
The applicant made representation/complaint in this
regard to Hon'ble President of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of
India, Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra State & Hon'ble Chief
Justice of Bombay High Court.
3. That, the above incidence makes the demand of the
applicant infructuous i.e. made for authenticated/certified
copies as per AnnexureA which has rendered this application
infructuous. So, the applicant wants to withdraw this
application.”
It is apparent that the applicant himself under his own signature
has made allegations contained in the orders. Therefore, he has to
be given an opportunity to file an affidavit taking responsibility of
such allegations. It is, therefore, false to claim that the applicant
did not make any such statements before this Court, as are
recorded in the orders dated 2042016 and 2542016.
20. It is a fact that the applicant has filed Writ Petition Stamp
No.20322 of 2015 before this Court (transferred to the Principal
Bench at Bombay and registered as Writ Petition No.11825 of
2015), in which Shri Bhushan Raosaheb Gavai, J. (It should have
been Shri Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai) is a party respondent No.4
for his transfer to some other High Court, and this fact is apparent
from the pursis dated 12102015, which is annexed by the
applicant himself in this revision application on page No.59D. The
applicant sought exemption from filing an affidavit in terms of the
orders dated 2042016 and 2542016 passed by this Court on the
ground that the issues raised in this revision application have also
been raised in 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 Fadnavis, Chief Minister of Maharashtra,
with whom Shri B.R. Gavai, J. is closely related.
(iii) That he had filed Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081 of 2015, which was dismissed by the Division
Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. on
14102015, seeking review of the judgment and order
dated 1612015 passed by the Division Bench of
Shri B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. in Criminal
Application (APPP) No.45 of 2015 , on the basis of the
record secretly produced by the office of the Government
Pleader.
(iv) That the judgment delivered on 14102015 in
Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 was not
dictated in open Court by the Division Bench of
M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., but some
different order was passed in the open Court in presence
of the applicant.
(v) That Shri Devendra Fadnavis (the present Chief
Minister of Maharashtra) is the client of Senior Advocate
Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and
Shri A.M. Sudame, and, therefore, it was not proper on
the part of Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to hear and decide the
Election Petition No.1 of 2014 filed by the applicant
challenging the election of Shri Devendra Fadnavis.
(vi) Shri Devendra Fadnavis and Smt. Bharti Dangre,
Government Pleader, have practised fraud upon the Court
by acting in collusion.
(vii) The court record of Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081 of 2015 has been manipulated by
Shri Rajandekar, acting as the Registrar of the High Court
of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur.
(viii) If Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. was so much interested
in the investigation, he ought to have ordered to seize the
concerned record of Criminal Application No.1081 of
2015 from the Registry and direct for placing the record
for investigation before the appropriate legal forum.
However, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. cannot do this because
of the above reasons and also if Senior Registrar
Shri Rajandekar is his relative.
22. If this Court is required to consider the question of
investigation into the manipulation of the record of Criminal
Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the first step, which this
Court will be required to do is to require the applicant to file an
affidavit in support of such allegations to carry the responsibility
and the consequences flowing therefrom. The allegations are wild,
reckless, scandalous and scurrilous attack 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 1982015. 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
appropriate time with the details, I could have decided whether to
recuse myself from taking up the said matter. It is only on
2042016 and 2542016, i.e. after about 8 months of this decision
in the Election Petition, when in the present revision application
this Court asked the applicant to carry responsibility of the
allegations made against sitting Judges, officers of the Court and
in respect of the record of this Court, the applicant has raised a
plea of recusal on such ground. At any rate, it is not understood as
to how and in what manner the decision in Election Petition
disqualifies me from taking up this revision application. The object
and intent in raising such plea at this stage is not only to browbeat
but to make unjustified aspersions on impartiality in discharge of
judicial functions.
24. I must make it clear that I am not in any manner in
relation with Shri Devendra Fadnavis, who became the Chief
Minister of Maharashtra for the first time in 201314. I might have
decided some cases against him before he became the Chief
Minister. My father is a designated Senior Advocate since 197677
and is engaged by lot many advocates to argue the matter for their
clients. In the absence of details, including case number and the
year of the alleged case, it is not possible to respond to such
allegations. It is not possible to maintain a list of such clients to
find out in each matter whether I can take up such matter, unless
parties to the lis before me bring it to the notice during the hearing
that either I had appeared for such party or that he is the client of
my father or the relative. Many times, it happens that the cases of
the distant relatives or the clients during practice of law are also
dealt with unknowingly or subconsciously and the orders are
passed either in their favour or against them.
25. A Judge may recuse at his own choice from a case
entrusted to him by the Chief Justice and it would be a matter of
his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of the litigating party,
unless justified, must never be acceded to. This is what the Apex
Court has held recently in NJAC case instituted by the Supreme
Court AdvocatesonRecord Association and another v. Union of
India, reported in 2015 (11) SCALE 1. The question of recusal is
normally decided by a Judge on the basis of his personal or private
interest in the subjectmatter of the litigation, his intimacy 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 lawyer and the subjectmatter of the litigation
or his conscience.
(iii) The participation of lawyers in political activities or
the activities of the Bar Association or in the voluntary
organizations and the local bodies is phenomenal. Such
lawyers frequently come before the Court as a litigant in
public interest litigations to espouse or defend the
common cause. The fact that such a lawyer is a regular
practitioner before this Court, does not come in the way
of adjudicating such matters, as the Court is concerned
with the subjectmatter of the litigation and the
beneficiaries of it.
(iv) Many times, it happens that a lawyer having
personal matter before the Court occupies the highest
position in the Bar Association and shares the dais with
the Judges in the official functions organized by the High
Court or the Bar Association, or visits the Judges at their
residence to express the condolences. These facts can
hardly be a ground or reason for recusal by a Judge to
take up the matters of such lawyers.
26. The applicant filed Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081
of 2015 for review of the judgment and order dated 1612015,
which was dismissed by the Division Bench, consisting of M/s. B.R.
Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., on 14102015. The reliefs
claimed by the applicant in the present Civil Revision Application
No.26 of 2016 were also claimed in substance by the applicant by
filing earlier Writ Petition No.6195 of 2015, and when the
applicant found that the petition was liable to be dismissed, he
made a statement before the Court that the petition has become
infructuous, and accordingly it was disposed of by the Division
Bench, consisting of M/s. B.P. Dharmadhikari and
V.M. Deshpande, JJ. on 23112015. Once the said writ petition
was dismissed as infructuous, it follows that the grievance of the
applicant for supply of copy of the record, said to have been filed
by the Government Pleader in Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081 of 2015, did not survive. In spite of this, the present civil
revision application has been filed, which, in substance, claims the
same reliefs based upon the same allegations, which is apparent
from the reading of writ petition and this revision application. On
earlier occasion, this Court seems to have shown some leniency in
accepting a plea of petition becoming infructuous. Now in order to
avoid compliance of the orders 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
Criminal proceeding i.e. Criminal Application U/S 482 of
Cr.P.C. (APL) No.824/2014 pending against Shri Fadnavis.
When the petitioner filed information/application as per the
Chapter XXXIV Rule 5(i) to 5(f) of the Bombay High Court
Appellate Side Rules, 1960 to bring the illegal acts committed
by the parties therein. The respondent no.4 taken up this
matter without jurisdiction & passed unwanted remarks
against the petitioner even when the petitioner filed specific
pursis about legal position of above Rules on record. It shows
question on his fairness & integrity as well as judicial propriety
of respondent no.4 towards his duties as a Judge as on one
hand Shri Fadnavis is openly speaking of his personal
relationship with Shri R.S. Gavai and on the other hand the
respondent no.4, who is a son of Shri R.S. Gavai, is dealing
and quashed the criminal case of Shri Fadnavis.”
28. After reading the entire Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015, I
do not find any semblance of the averments made therein with the
controversy involved in this revision application. This revision
application seeks copies of documents contained in the record, said
to have been filed by the office of Government Pleader in Criminal
Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. According to the applicant,
such record is returned. As such, it was not a part and parcel of
the record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. The
judgment dated 14102015 in the said application does not refer
to any such record. Even para 6 in Writ Petition No.11825 of
2015, reproduced earlier, does not refer to Criminal Application
(APPP) No.1081 of 2015. Thus, this is another attempt to make
false statement before this Court, recorded in the order
dated 2542016 passed in this revision application, with a view
avoid this Bench.
29. The applicant filed the Transfer Petition (Civil) No.672 of
2016 before the Apex Court. The applicant wanted transfer of Writ
Petition No.11825 of 2015 filed by him seeking transfer of
Shri B.R. Gavai, J. to some other High Court. On 252016, the
Apex Court passed an order in the said petition, which is
reproduced below :
“Heard.
We do not see any merit in this transfer petition,
which is hereby dismissed.
At this stage, Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, learned
counsel for the petitioner, submits, on instructions of the
petitioner who is also present inperson, that the petitioner
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 Kerla,
Bihar), Devendra filed one Criminal Application U/S
482 of Cr.P.C. no.824/2014 before Shri B.R. Gavai J.
(son of late Shri R.S. Gavai, before the death of Shri
R.S. Gavai) at Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.
Devendra got Charge sheet U/S 324 of I.P.C. Quashed
without filing copy of charge sheet on Court's record.
Devendra deliberately & knowingly not disclosed his
relations of with the family member of
Shri B.R. Gavai J. Devendra also shown one Madanlal
Parate as a coaccused and coapplicant in the said
criminal matter and also got affidavit swear through in
the hands and signature of said Madanlal Parate (the
fake accused, who was never a coaccused in said
Criminal case with Devendra). Devendra through his
G.P./college mate (Advocate in Election Petition) Smt.
Bharti Dangre and other A.G.P. also made secret
communication with the Judges including Shri B.R.
Gavai J for decision of one application filed therein.
3. Devendra is having friendly/social/Advocate with
senior counsel Adv. K.H. Deshpande, Adv. Mohan
Sudame, Adv. Akshay Sudame. One Election Petition
no.1/2014 filed before the Nagpur bench of Bombay
High Court for challenging the election of Devendra on
the ground of non disclosure of criminal cases pending
against him in the Criminal Courts. The said Election
Petition came to be allotted to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J
(who is a son of Adv. K.H. Deshpande, father in law of
Adv. Akshay Sudame, father in law of son's of Adv.
Mohan Sudame). Devendra Fadnavis knowingly not
disclose the said relations before the High Court and the
opponent therein and filed the application for rejection
of plaint & got relief from the said judge of High Court.
4. It was a duty of Devendra Fadnavis to bring on the
record of High Court and in the knowledge of the
opponent about his relations with the family members
of the above judges. Devendra not disclosed the above
facts and took disadvantage as a outcome of such
relations and committed Criminal Conspiracy,
Misleading & Fraud on CourtInstitution of Justice, the
opponent including Adv. Satish Uke, Nagpur and Public
at large by showing his image clean & clearn.
Devendra is showing and posing his image clean and
clear and committed cheating with public at large.
5. The copies if attached documents with Hindu
version of the above facts are showing the factual
position of nature and act of Mr. 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 selfrestraint.
33. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Roshan
Lal Ahuja, In Re, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 446, the Apex
Court was considering the allegations made in the memorandum of
writ petition and in the representation made before the President
of India containing scurrilous and indecent attacks on the Court as
well as on the Judges of the Court in wild, intemperate and abusive
language. The Court found that the language used in the offending
documents has not only the effect of scandalizing and lowering the
authority of the Court in relation to judicial matters but also has
the effect of substantially interfering with and obstructing the
administration of justice. The Court holds that the unfounded and
unwarranted aspersions on the impartiality and ability of the
Judges of the Court to render justice has the tendency to
undermine the authority of the Court and create a distrust in the
public mind as to the capacity of Judges of the Court to mete out
evenhanded justice. The Court holds that the remarks made by
the contemner are disparaging in character and derogatory to the
dignity of the Court and besides scandalising the Court in relation
to judicial matters have the tendency to shake the confidence of the
public in the Apex Court.
34. Para 11 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced
below :
“11. The tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial
officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure an order
which they desire is on the increase and it is high time that
serious note is taken of the same. No latitude can be given
to a litigant to browbeat the court. Merely because a party
chooses to appear in person, it does not give him a licence
to indulge in making such aspersions as have the tendency
to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters.”
35. In para 12 of the said decision, the Apex Court has
observed as under :
“12. … However, when from the criticism a deliberate,
motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring
down the image of the 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 bester themselves to uphold their dignity and the
majesty of law. No litigant can be permitted to overstep the
limits of fair, bona fide and reasonable criticism of a
judgment and bring 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 in the case of Jaswant Singh v. Virender
Singh and others, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 384, the Apex
Court was dealing with the aspersions cast on the learned Judge of
the High Court dealing with the election petition. Para 33 of the
said decision being relevant, is reproduced below :
“33. Thereafter, the appellant as already noticed, filed a
transfer petition in this Court which was dismissed on
3081993. The transfer petition like the application (supra)
cast aspersions on the learned Judge in the discharge of his
judicial functions and had the tendency to scandalise the
Court. It was an attempt to browbeat the learned Judge of the
High Court and cause interference in the conduct of a fair trial.
Not only are the aspersions derogatory, scandalous and
uncalled for but they also tend to bring the authority and
administration of law into disrespect. The contents of the
application seeking stay as also of the transfer petition, bring
the court into disrepute and are an affront to the majesty of
law and offend the dignity of the court. The appellant is an
advocate and it is painful that by filing the application and the
petition as a party in person, couched in an objectionable
language, he permitted himself the liberty of indulging in an
action, which ill behoves him and does little credit to the noble
profession to which he belongs. An advocate has no wider
protection than a layman when he commits an act which
amounts to contempt of court. It is most unbefitting for an
advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because
he does not get the expected result, which according to him is
the fair and reasonable result available to him. Judges cannot
be intimidated to seek favourable orders. Only because a
lawyer appears as a party in person, he does not get a licence
thereby to commit contempt of the court by intimidating the
Judges or scandalising the courts. He cannot use language,
either in the pleadings or during arguments, which is either
intemperate or unparliamentary. These safeguards are not for
the protection of any Judge individually but are essential for
maintaining the dignity and decorum of the courts and for
upholding the majesty of law. Judges and courts are not
unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of
their judgments. Fair comments, even if, outspoken, but made
without any malice or attempting to impair the administration
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 to deal with the matter and the question of barring
an advocate from practising before the High Court in exercise of
the inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Paras 238 and 239 of the said decision being relevant, are
reproduced below :
“238. In Supreme Court Bar Assn. the direction prohibiting an
advocate from appearing in court for a specified period was
viewed as a total and complete denial of his right to practise
law and the bar was considered as a punishment inflicted on
him. In Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal it was seen not as punishment
for professional misconduct but as a measure necessary to
regulate the court's proceedings and to maintain the dignity
and orderly functioning of the courts. We may respectfully add
that in a given case a direction disallowing an advocate who is
convicted of criminal contempt from appearing in court may
not only be a measure to maintain the dignity and orderly
functioning of the courts but may become necessary for the
selfprotection of the court and for preservation of the purity of
court proceedings. Let us, for example, take the case where an
advocate is shown to have accepted money in the name of a
judge or on the pretext of influencing him; or where an
advocate is found tampering with the court's record; or where
an advocate is found actively taking part in faking court orders
(fake bail orders are not unknown in several High Courts!); or
where an advocate has made it into a practice to browbeat and
abuse judges and on that basis has earned the reputation to
get a case transferred from an “inconvnient” court; or where
an advocate is found to be in the habit of sending unfounded
and unsubstantiated allegation petitions against judicial
officers and judges to the superior courts. Unfortunately these
examples are not from imagination. These things are
happening more frequently than we care to acknowledge.”
“239. We may also add that these illustrations are not
exhaustive but there may be other ways in which a
malefactor's conduct and actions may pose a real and
imminent threat to the purity of court proceedings, cardinal to
any court's functioning, apart from constituting a substantive
offence and contempt of court and professional misconduct. In
such a situation the court does not only have the right but it
also has the obligation cast upon it to protect itself and 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 politician for a period of almost 60 years. If
a father of a judge happens to be a politician and after the
mortal remains are brought to his residence and if the
politicians visit the residence to pay their last respect, is it
the expectation of the applicant, that the judge concerned
should ask the guards at his house to stop the visitors and
politicians.”
“18. … The present order along with the copies of all
the relevant proceedings shall be forwarded forthwith to the
Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of this Court, the learned
Advocate General of Maharashtra, the Chairman of the Bar
Council of Maharashtra and Goa for considering as to
whether anything needs to be done in the matter.”
39. The applicant himself is a practising lawyer at Nagpur
Bench of Bombay High Court. From the office of this Court, I have
called the information about the cases in which the applicant is
appearing in person either as the applicant or as the respondent.
The numbers of these matters are given as under :
Case No./Crime No.
Criminal Application
No.1323/2010
Criminal Application
No.1916/2010
Criminal Application
No.1915/2010
Criminal Application
No.1884/2010
Criminal Application
No.1951/2010
Criminal Application
No.1952/2010
Criminal Application
No.1950/2010
Criminal Writ Petition
No.294/2011
Criminal Writ Petition
No.441/2010
Criminal Writ Petition
No.618/2005
(Decided)
Criminal Contempt
Petition No.2/2015 in
APL No.491/2013
Criminal Application
(APPP) No.955/2014
in Criminal
Application (APL)
No.258/2013
(Decided) with
Criminal Application
(APL) No.491/2013
Criminal Application
(APPP) No.40/2015
in Cri. Application
(APPP)
No.1081/2015 (D) in
Criminal Application
No.45/2015 (D) in
Criminal Application
(APL) No.824/2014
(Decided)
Cri. Contempt Petition
No.2/2013
Civil Writ Petition
No.2760/2015
Criminal Application
No.1192/2008
Criminal Writ Petition
No.23/2002
Criminal Writ Petition
No.110/2015
Criminal APL
No.157/2014
Criminal Writ Petition
No.1078/2014
Criminal Writ Petition
No.166/2006
Criminal Writ Petition
No.411/2010
Criminal Writ Petition
No.419/2010
Civil Writ Petition
No.6195/2015
The credentials of the applicant can be understood from the above
criminal cases to which he is a party in person. There are hardly
any matters, wherein he is representing any party 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
252016 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 Fadnavis, the officers of the Court, including the
Government Pleader and the Registrar. This is a definite act of
misleading the Apex Court that henceforth no such activity shall be
carried. In the absence of such representation, one does not know
what would have been the fate of the Transfer Petition filed before
the Apex Court.
42. The object, intent and motive behind it seems to be only
to malign the image of the judiciary. The attention of the Judges is
distracted by such interference in the administration of justice.
Various publications by the applicant cause an embarrassment and
create a distrust in the public mind as to the impartial capacity of
the Judges of the Court to mete out evenhanded justice. The
activities of the applicant are posing a real and imminent threat to
the purity of the Court proceedings. The allegations made are
affront to the majesty of law and offend the dignity of the Court.
43. In the light of the facts of this case, and the law laid down
by the Apex Court, I propose to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to frame the
following draft charges against the applicantSatish Mahadeorao
Uke for the act of the contempt of Court :
(1) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have instituted
various civil and criminal proceedings in this Court,
against the sitting Judges of this Court, the officers of this
Court, including lawyers and the Registrar, as are pointed
out in this order, which are frivolous and vexatious and
thereby you have committed an act of abuse of process of
the Court, amounting to contempt of Court.
(2) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have made
statements of facts before this Court recorded in the
orders dated 2042016 and 2542016 and contained in
Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2016 and the pursis
Stamp Nos.5462 of 2016 and 5811 of 2016, which you
knew and believed to be false, so as to browbeat this
Court on the basis of a false case of recusal and indulging
in the activity of benchhunting.
(3) In various litigations as are instituted and the
publications, which are referred to in this order, you,
Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have used wild, intemperate,
unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible allegations
scandalizing the Court and making a scurrilous attack on
the Judges in person and the officers of the Court,
including the Government Pleader, other 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 has been held that the Court has power to disallow
advocate convicted in criminal contempt from appearing in Court.
The Apex Court added in para 239 of the said decision that the
Court does not only have the right but it also has the obligation
cast upon it to protect itself and 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.
45. In terms of Rule 5 in Part II of the Rules to regulate
proceedings for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this order can
constitute an information for taking suo motu action for contempt
of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and it will
have to be accordingly placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of
Bombay High Court for appropriate orders in terms of clauses 5(f)
and 5(g) of the said Rules. Hence, I pass the following order :
(1) Issue notice to the applicantSatish Mahadeorao
Uke to show cause as to why the proceedings for criminal
contempt should not be instituted against him for the
draft charges framed in this order? Notice is made
returnable on 182016.
(2) This order be placed before Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of Bombay High Court in terms of clauses 5(f) and
5(g) of the Rules under Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay
High Court Appellate Side Rules to constitute the
appropriate Division Bench, as required by Section 18 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, to take cognizance of the act
of contempt of Court by treating this order itself as a
petition for contempt of Court, in accordance with law
and Satish Mahadeorao Uke be shown as the contemnor.
(3) The Division Bench assigned with the matter may
consider the question of taking Satish Mahadeorao Uke in
judicial custody pending the decision of the contempt
proceedings to prevent him from instituting such
proceedings and/or publicizing the allegations against
sitting Judges, officers of this Court, including lawyers
practising in this Court, so as to cause an embarrassment
and interference in the course of justice.
(4) During the pendency of the proceedings before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice and/or before the Division
Bench of this Court for taking decision on the cognizance
of contempt of Court, the applicantSatish Mahadeorao
Uke, who shall be the 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 the instance of Satish Mahadeorao Uke in respect
of the matters not related to the draft charges levelled in
this order.
(7) The ad interim orders in terms of clauses (4)
and (5) above, shall operate from today, i.e. 662016,
and the same shall continue to operate till the decision on
it by the Division Bench. All the aforesaid ad interim
orders are subject to further orders to be passed by the
Division Bench, which shall be assigned this matter by
Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Unless the orders are varied,
the same shall continue to operate pending these
proceedings.
JUDGE.
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
252016 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 Fadnavis, the officers of the Court, including the
Government Pleader and the Registrar. This is a definite act of
misleading the Apex Court that henceforth no such activity shall be
carried. In the absence of such representation, one does not know
what would have been the fate of the Transfer Petition filed before
the Apex Court.
42. The object, intent and motive behind it seems to be only
to malign the image of the judiciary. The attention of the Judges is
distracted by such interference in the administration of justice.
Various publications by the applicant cause an embarrassment and
create a distrust in the public mind as to the impartial capacity of
the Judges of the Court to mete out evenhanded justice. The
activities of the applicant are posing a real and imminent threat to
the purity of the Court proceedings. The allegations made are
affront to the majesty of law and offend the dignity of the Court.
43. In the light of the facts of this case, and the law laid down
by the Apex Court, I propose to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to frame the
following draft charges against the applicantSatish Mahadeorao
Uke for the act of the contempt of Court :
(1) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have instituted
various civil and criminal proceedings in this Court,
against the sitting Judges of this Court, the officers of this
Court, including lawyers and the Registrar, as are pointed
out in this order, which are frivolous and vexatious and
thereby you have committed an act of abuse of process of
the Court, amounting to contempt of Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.26 OF 2016
Satish Mahadeorao Uke,
Versus
The Registrar,
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Nagpur,
Nagpur. ... NonApplicant
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : 6TH JUNE, 2016
Citation:2016(4) MHLJ 406
1. This revision application has been filed to seek copies of
the record of C.A. No.U3733/E122 R.No.122 dated 442016,
which, according to the applicant, was filed in Criminal Application
(APPP) No.1081 of 2015 by the office of the Government Pleader.
Normally, the application would either be allowed or dismissed for
the reasons to be stated in the order to be passed. There would
also not be any objection for the Court if the applicant wanted to
withdraw the revision application. This could have been permitted
by this Court if it had been a simple revision application without
making any serious allegations assailing the record of this Court
and without mudslinging the sitting Judges and the officers of this
Court. The revision application along with the documents and
pursis on record contain all sorts of wild allegations amounting to
scurrilous attack 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 2042016 and 2542016 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
3. Criminal Applications (APL) No.824 of 2015 and 825 of
2015 were filed on 22122014 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 Jaising Hiranwar under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing the countercases, viz. Crime
No.252 of 1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 448, 324, 336
and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and Crime No.253 of 1991
under Sections 324, 294, 506(b), and 427 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, in which the applicant Nos.1 and 2 were the
accused, filed by them against each other on 761991. The
Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. allowed
the said applications on 23122014 and quashed the proceedings
by consent of parties on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab,
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466.
4. The applicantSatish Mahadeorao Uke was not the party
to both the aforesaid applications, but filed Criminal Application
No.45 of 2015, claiming the reliefs as under :
4
“1. Take cognizance of this application to conduct enquiry
u/s 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. And suo motu criminal
contempt of court action. OR if Hon'ble Court thinks, this
instant application may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
Justice of Bombay High Court for appropriate orders.
2. Recall the common order dated 23.12.2014 passed in
Original Criminal Application (APL) 824/2014 (Hruday
Kumar and others vs. State of Maharashtra).
3. Recall the common order dated 23.12.2014 passed in
Original Criminal Application (APL) 825/2014 (Deepak
Hiranwar and others vs. State of Maharashtra).
4. Examine legality, propriety and illegality of the order
and the conduct of the parties in obtaining order including
office objections.
5. Suitable action under Section 195 read with 340 of
Criminal Procedure Code be proceeded against the
concerned parties and concerned Advocates therein
including Government Pleaders.
6. Initiate suo motu criminal contempt action under the
provisions of Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215
of the Constitution of India against the concerned parties
and concerned Advocates including Government Pleaders.
OR
In the alternative the said proceeding may kindly be
forwarded to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Bombay High
Court, Fort, Mumbai.
7. Grant any other relief to which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the
case.”
The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Division Bench of
M/s. B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. by its judgment and
5
order dated 1612015 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 1782015 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 2192015 for review of the judgment
and order 1612015 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 14102015.
7. On 15102015, the applicant filed an application for
obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and order
6
dated 14102015 along with all other documents, including the
cover sheet of GP File – two copies. This application addressed to
the Additional Registrar of the High Court was processed by the
office, and ultimately by speaking order dated 28102015 passed
by the Deputy Registrar (Shri R.R. Rathi), the prayer for supply of
certified copy of the cover sheet of GP File was rejected.
8. The applicant filed Civil Writ Petition No.6195 of 2015
before this Court containing the prayer clauses 2, 3 and 4, which
are reproduced below :
“2] Direct the Registry not to return original record –
handwritten notes with the signature of Government
Pleader on it available in Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081/2015 against their powers under Bombay High
Court Appellate Side Rules 1960.
3] Direct the Registry to issue Certified Copies to the
petitioner from same original record – handwritten notes
with the signature of Government Pleader on it available in
Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081/2015, on receipt of
fresh application from the petitioner.
4] Direct the respondent to keep same original record –
handwritten notes with the signature of Government
Pleader on it available in Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081/2015 as it is till further orders of this Hon'ble
court.”
The Registrar of the High Court, Bench at Nagpur was the only
partyrespondent. The petition was disposed of by the Division
Bench of this Court consisting of M/s. B.P. Dharmadhikari and V.M.
Deshpande, JJ. on 23112015, and the order is reproduced below :
“ Shri Uke, petitioner in person, submits that due to
subsequent events, challenge as raised is rendered
infructuous. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw with
liberty to make further grievance, if any, before appropriate
forum.
This Court has not still issued notice to the respondent.
As such, we dispose of the writ petition as having become
infructuous.
Needless to mention that if any grievance is open in
future for making, it is always open for the petitioner to
make the same in accordance with law.”
9. On 1112016, the applicant filed Criminal Application
(APPP) No.40 of 2016 for grant of leave to file an appeal against
the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in Criminal Review
Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. It was forwarded to the
Principal Seat of this Court at Mumbai for 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 432016 passed by the Registry. The
matter was listed before me on 2932016. 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.
11. This civil revision application under subrule (i) of
Rule 7 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 has
been filed on 1142016 by the applicant calling for the record of
C.A. No. U3733/E122 R. No.122 dated 442016 and to direct the
Registrar to issue copies of the said record as was sought by the
applicant in the said application dated 442016. According to the
applicant, appearing in person, the said record was filed by the
office of Government Pleader in Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081 of 2015, which was decided on 14102015 by the
Division Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
12. On 2042016, when this civil revision application was
listed before me, the following order was passed :
“ The applicant, appearing in person, has urged
before this Court that on 14102015, he was present before
the Division Bench presided over by M/s. B.R. Gavai and
Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., and had argued Criminal Review
Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. He submits that the
judgment, which is placed on record on page 40 of this civil
revision application, consisting of 18 pages, was not
delivered in the open Court, but some other order was
passed in his presence. He, therefore, seeks time to file an
affidavit stating the following two things :
(i) that the judgment dated 14102015 in Criminal
Review Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 was not
passed in his presence in the open Court, and
(ii) that th exact order, which, according to him, was
passed in the aforesaid matter by the Division Bench.
Hence, put up this matter on 2542016.”
13. The applicant sought time to file an affidavit on the
aforestated two points. Thereafter, this civil revision application
was listed before this Court on 2542016. Instead of filing
affidavit, the applicant at that time invited my attention to the
pursis stamp No.5462 of 2016, which he had filed on 2242016
seeking withdrawal of the revision application on the ground that
he had made a representation/complaint to the Hon'ble President
of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Governor of
Maharashtra State, and Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High
Court, which makes the demand of the application for the certified
copies of the record infructuous. He, therefore, claimed for
withdrawal of the application.
14. This Court passed an order on 2542016 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 averments are made, which are of serious
nature assailing the record of this Court, and unless such
averments are made on affidavit, it is not possible to
consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of permission
to withdraw the revision application.
At this stage, Shri Uke, submits that he has filed
Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 which is pending for
adjudication before the Principal Bench of this Court at
Mumbai. He submits that the issues which are raised in this
revision application have also been raised in the said writ
petition which is pending. He therefore, seeks exemption
from filing affidavit and seeks permission to withdraw this
revision application. It is not possible to accept such prayer
orally and the petitioner is therefore, permitted to file an
affidavit in this Court stating all these facts along with the
copy of the Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015 which is said to
be pending before the Principal Bench of this Court at
Mumbai.
Shri Uke, therefore, seeks time in this matter till
04.05.2016.
Put up this matter on 04.05.2016.”
The matter was accordingly listed before this Court on 452016.
The applicant, appearing in person, remained absent, but placed on
record the pursis stamp No.5811 of 2016.
15. In the pursis stamp No.5811 of 2016 filed on 3042016,
the applicant states that the orders dated 2042016 and
2542016, reproduced earlier, are passed beyond the
subjectmatter of the revision and the application has already been
moved before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Hon'ble
Chief Justice of Bombay High Court with a request for appropriate
action and placing the matters of the applicant before another
Bench. After perusal of the pursis, the matter was kept at
2.30 p.m. yesterday, as the applicant was absent. Again at 2.30
p.m. yesterday, the applicant remained absent, and, therefore, the
matter was kept on 552016. The applicant remained absent.
Hence, the matter was closed for orders.
16. Perusal of the pursis Stamp No.5811 of 2016 shows that
the applicant claims recusal by me to hear and decide this revision
application containing the allegations, which are in substance
extracted below :
(i) This revision has been filed only for issuance of
copies of the documents asked for consisting of record of
C.A. No.U3733/E122 R.No.122 dated 442016, but the
orders passed by this Court in this revision application on
2042016 and 2542016 travel beyond the
subjectmatter of the revision [Paras 2 and 6].
(ii) The issues reflected in the orders dated 2042016
and 2542016 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 B. Varale, JJ.,
before whom Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande,
Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and Advocate
Shri A.M. Sudame are practising. It is, therefore, not
proper for Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to take up the matter
related to M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
[Para 4(b)].
(v) Smt. Bharti H. Dangre has appeared for
Shri Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis in Election Petition
No.1 of 2014 before Shri R.K. Deshpande, J., and in
various matters Smt. B.H. Dangre, Government Pleader,
has appeared on behalf of the State Government, wherein
Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri
Mohan Sudame, and Advocate Shri A.M. Sudame have
appeared. [Paras 4(c) and 4(d)].
(vi) It is a matter of record that in Criminal Application
(APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the officials of the Registry of
this Court are involved regarding manipulation of record,
and the Registry is headed and controlled by Senior
Registrar Shri Rajandekar, who is related to Shri R.K.
Deshpande, J., and it is, therefore, improper for him to
take the matter relating to the Registry.
[Paras 4(e) and 4(h)].
(vii) It is seen that Senior Advocate Shri K.H.
Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame and Advocate
Shri A.M. Sudame have appeared for Shri Devendra
Gangadhar Fadnavis and have relations with
Shri Fadnavis in any manner, and it is, therefore,
improper for Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to take up any
matter relating to Shri Fadnavis and it was improper for
Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to hear and decide Election
Petition No.1 of 2014 challenging the election of
Shri Fadnavis. [Para 4(f)].
(viii) As per the record, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. has
worked in the Division Bench with Shri B.R. Gavai, J., and
it is, therefore, improper for him to take up any matter in
which Shri B.R. Gavai, J. is involved. [Para 4(g)].
(ix) The orders dated 2042016 and 2542016 seem to
have been passed to put the applicant in a difficult
situation with intention to take harsh action, which may
involve the action for contempt of Court, that too without
the authority of the investigation in the issues relating to
manipulation of record that amount to criminal offences.
However, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. cannot do this because
for the reasons already stated and also that the Senior
Registrar Shri Rajandekar is his relative. [Para 4(h)].
(x) The applicant has already moved an application 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, I had
allowed Civil Revision Application No.22 of 2016 filed by the
applicant and order passed by the Registry on 432016 was set
aside and the Registrar (Shri Rajandekar) was directed to supply
the copy of the communication within a period of eight days to the
applicant. The applicant did not raise any objection for hearing of
the matter by me on the ground that the Registrar Shri Rajandekar
is my relative and he was benefited by the order of this Court.
18. As per the assignment in the roster, all the revision
applications challenging the orders passed by the Registrar of this
Court or his subordinate officers are required to be dealt with by
this Court and day in and day out the orders passed by the
Registrar in his official capacity are set aside and in such matters,
the question of personal relations hardly comes in the way when
the Registrar acts in his official capacity. The Registrar (Shri
Rajandekar) has not been joined in his personal capacity as a
partyrespondent, and the allegation is made against him regarding
manipulation of the record of Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081 of 2015. Even during the course of hearing of this civil
revision application on 2 – 3 occasions, the applicant did not raise
any such objection of my personal relations with the Registrar of
this Court Shri Rajandekar. In fact, I may state here that there is
not even a single order placed on record which is passed or signed
by Shri Rajandekar in his capacity as a Registrar of this Court. The
orders are passed by his subordinate officers and the Registrar
being head of the administration in the Bench at Nagpur, the
applicant has joined him in his official capacity and not by his
personal name. The question of recusal on my part to make an
exception of dealing with such assignment on this count does not at
all arise.
19. In the orders dated 2042016 and 2542016 passed in
this civil revision application (reproduced in paras 12 and 14
above), the arguments advanced by the applicant before this Court
are reproduced. In the pursis Stamp No.5811 of 2016, a statement
is made by the applicant in para 6 that the applicant does not agree
with the observations made by this Court in the said orders. This is
prima facie a false statement, and the applicant himself had invited
my attention to the averments made in para 7[a] of this civil
revision application, which are extracted 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
2.11.2015 moved by the officers of the Govt. Pleader
(AnnexureI) are not of the Xerox of the record which was
available on the above Court's record on dated 14.10.2015 &
28.10.2015 & seen by the applicant.
It shows that the record of G.P. file which was available
on the Court's record on dated 14.10.2015 & 28.10.2015 &
seen by the applicant in original form came to be changed by
some different but similar record. That, some other but similar
record kept on court's record shown as returned to the Govt.
Pleader officials & Xerox of which are kept on the Court record.
This act is committed in appeal period against the Rule 1
Chapter XV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,
1960. Copy of the inspection application dated 21.4.2016
annexed herewith as AnnexureP.
The applicant made representation/complaint in this
regard to Hon'ble President of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of
India, Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra State & Hon'ble Chief
Justice of Bombay High Court.
3. That, the above incidence makes the demand of the
applicant infructuous i.e. made for authenticated/certified
copies as per AnnexureA which has rendered this application
infructuous. So, the applicant wants to withdraw this
application.”
It is apparent that the applicant himself under his own signature
has made allegations contained in the orders. Therefore, he has to
be given an opportunity to file an affidavit taking responsibility of
such allegations. It is, therefore, false to claim that the applicant
did not make any such statements before this Court, as are
recorded in the orders dated 2042016 and 2542016.
20. It is a fact that the applicant has filed Writ Petition Stamp
No.20322 of 2015 before this Court (transferred to the Principal
Bench at Bombay and registered as Writ Petition No.11825 of
2015), in which Shri Bhushan Raosaheb Gavai, J. (It should have
been Shri Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai) is a party respondent No.4
for his transfer to some other High Court, and this fact is apparent
from the pursis dated 12102015, which is annexed by the
applicant himself in this revision application on page No.59D. The
applicant sought exemption from filing an affidavit in terms of the
orders dated 2042016 and 2542016 passed by this Court on the
ground that the issues raised in this revision application have also
been raised in 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 Fadnavis, Chief Minister of Maharashtra,
with whom Shri B.R. Gavai, J. is closely related.
(iii) That he had filed Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081 of 2015, which was dismissed by the Division
Bench of M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. on
14102015, seeking review of the judgment and order
dated 1612015 passed by the Division Bench of
Shri B.R. Gavai and Smt. M.R. Bhatkar, JJ. in Criminal
Application (APPP) No.45 of 2015 , on the basis of the
record secretly produced by the office of the Government
Pleader.
(iv) That the judgment delivered on 14102015 in
Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 was not
dictated in open Court by the Division Bench of
M/s. B.R. Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., but some
different order was passed in the open Court in presence
of the applicant.
(v) That Shri Devendra Fadnavis (the present Chief
Minister of Maharashtra) is the client of Senior Advocate
Shri K.H. Deshpande, Advocate Shri Mohan Sudame, and
Shri A.M. Sudame, and, therefore, it was not proper on
the part of Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. to hear and decide the
Election Petition No.1 of 2014 filed by the applicant
challenging the election of Shri Devendra Fadnavis.
(vi) Shri Devendra Fadnavis and Smt. Bharti Dangre,
Government Pleader, have practised fraud upon the Court
by acting in collusion.
(vii) The court record of Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081 of 2015 has been manipulated by
Shri Rajandekar, acting as the Registrar of the High Court
of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur.
(viii) If Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. was so much interested
in the investigation, he ought to have ordered to seize the
concerned record of Criminal Application No.1081 of
2015 from the Registry and direct for placing the record
for investigation before the appropriate legal forum.
However, Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. cannot do this because
of the above reasons and also if Senior Registrar
Shri Rajandekar is his relative.
22. If this Court is required to consider the question of
investigation into the manipulation of the record of Criminal
Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015, the first step, which this
Court will be required to do is to require the applicant to file an
affidavit in support of such allegations to carry the responsibility
and the consequences flowing therefrom. The allegations are wild,
reckless, scandalous and scurrilous attack 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 1982015. 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
appropriate time with the details, I could have decided whether to
recuse myself from taking up the said matter. It is only on
2042016 and 2542016, i.e. after about 8 months of this decision
in the Election Petition, when in the present revision application
this Court asked the applicant to carry responsibility of the
allegations made against sitting Judges, officers of the Court and
in respect of the record of this Court, the applicant has raised a
plea of recusal on such ground. At any rate, it is not understood as
to how and in what manner the decision in Election Petition
disqualifies me from taking up this revision application. The object
and intent in raising such plea at this stage is not only to browbeat
but to make unjustified aspersions on impartiality in discharge of
judicial functions.
24. I must make it clear that I am not in any manner in
relation with Shri Devendra Fadnavis, who became the Chief
Minister of Maharashtra for the first time in 201314. I might have
decided some cases against him before he became the Chief
Minister. My father is a designated Senior Advocate since 197677
and is engaged by lot many advocates to argue the matter for their
clients. In the absence of details, including case number and the
year of the alleged case, it is not possible to respond to such
allegations. It is not possible to maintain a list of such clients to
find out in each matter whether I can take up such matter, unless
parties to the lis before me bring it to the notice during the hearing
that either I had appeared for such party or that he is the client of
my father or the relative. Many times, it happens that the cases of
the distant relatives or the clients during practice of law are also
dealt with unknowingly or subconsciously and the orders are
passed either in their favour or against them.
25. A Judge may recuse at his own choice from a case
entrusted to him by the Chief Justice and it would be a matter of
his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of the litigating party,
unless justified, must never be acceded to. This is what the Apex
Court has held recently in NJAC case instituted by the Supreme
Court AdvocatesonRecord Association and another v. Union of
India, reported in 2015 (11) SCALE 1. The question of recusal is
normally decided by a Judge on the basis of his personal or private
interest in the subjectmatter of the litigation, his intimacy 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 lawyer and the subjectmatter of the litigation
or his conscience.
(iii) The participation of lawyers in political activities or
the activities of the Bar Association or in the voluntary
organizations and the local bodies is phenomenal. Such
lawyers frequently come before the Court as a litigant in
public interest litigations to espouse or defend the
common cause. The fact that such a lawyer is a regular
practitioner before this Court, does not come in the way
of adjudicating such matters, as the Court is concerned
with the subjectmatter of the litigation and the
beneficiaries of it.
(iv) Many times, it happens that a lawyer having
personal matter before the Court occupies the highest
position in the Bar Association and shares the dais with
the Judges in the official functions organized by the High
Court or the Bar Association, or visits the Judges at their
residence to express the condolences. These facts can
hardly be a ground or reason for recusal by a Judge to
take up the matters of such lawyers.
26. The applicant filed Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081
of 2015 for review of the judgment and order dated 1612015,
which was dismissed by the Division Bench, consisting of M/s. B.R.
Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., on 14102015. The reliefs
claimed by the applicant in the present Civil Revision Application
No.26 of 2016 were also claimed in substance by the applicant by
filing earlier Writ Petition No.6195 of 2015, and when the
applicant found that the petition was liable to be dismissed, he
made a statement before the Court that the petition has become
infructuous, and accordingly it was disposed of by the Division
Bench, consisting of M/s. B.P. Dharmadhikari and
V.M. Deshpande, JJ. on 23112015. Once the said writ petition
was dismissed as infructuous, it follows that the grievance of the
applicant for supply of copy of the record, said to have been filed
by the Government Pleader in Criminal Application (APPP)
No.1081 of 2015, did not survive. In spite of this, the present civil
revision application has been filed, which, in substance, claims the
same reliefs based upon the same allegations, which is apparent
from the reading of writ petition and this revision application. On
earlier occasion, this Court seems to have shown some leniency in
accepting a plea of petition becoming infructuous. Now in order to
avoid compliance of the orders 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
Criminal proceeding i.e. Criminal Application U/S 482 of
Cr.P.C. (APL) No.824/2014 pending against Shri Fadnavis.
When the petitioner filed information/application as per the
Chapter XXXIV Rule 5(i) to 5(f) of the Bombay High Court
Appellate Side Rules, 1960 to bring the illegal acts committed
by the parties therein. The respondent no.4 taken up this
matter without jurisdiction & passed unwanted remarks
against the petitioner even when the petitioner filed specific
pursis about legal position of above Rules on record. It shows
question on his fairness & integrity as well as judicial propriety
of respondent no.4 towards his duties as a Judge as on one
hand Shri Fadnavis is openly speaking of his personal
relationship with Shri R.S. Gavai and on the other hand the
respondent no.4, who is a son of Shri R.S. Gavai, is dealing
and quashed the criminal case of Shri Fadnavis.”
28. After reading the entire Writ Petition No.11825 of 2015, I
do not find any semblance of the averments made therein with the
controversy involved in this revision application. This revision
application seeks copies of documents contained in the record, said
to have been filed by the office of Government Pleader in Criminal
Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. According to the applicant,
such record is returned. As such, it was not a part and parcel of
the record of Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015. The
judgment dated 14102015 in the said application does not refer
to any such record. Even para 6 in Writ Petition No.11825 of
2015, reproduced earlier, does not refer to Criminal Application
(APPP) No.1081 of 2015. Thus, this is another attempt to make
false statement before this Court, recorded in the order
dated 2542016 passed in this revision application, with a view
avoid this Bench.
29. The applicant filed the Transfer Petition (Civil) No.672 of
2016 before the Apex Court. The applicant wanted transfer of Writ
Petition No.11825 of 2015 filed by him seeking transfer of
Shri B.R. Gavai, J. to some other High Court. On 252016, the
Apex Court passed an order in the said petition, which is
reproduced below :
“Heard.
We do not see any merit in this transfer petition,
which is hereby dismissed.
At this stage, Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, learned
counsel for the petitioner, submits, on instructions of the
petitioner who is also present inperson, that the petitioner
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 Kerla,
Bihar), Devendra filed one Criminal Application U/S
482 of Cr.P.C. no.824/2014 before Shri B.R. Gavai J.
(son of late Shri R.S. Gavai, before the death of Shri
R.S. Gavai) at Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.
Devendra got Charge sheet U/S 324 of I.P.C. Quashed
without filing copy of charge sheet on Court's record.
Devendra deliberately & knowingly not disclosed his
relations of with the family member of
Shri B.R. Gavai J. Devendra also shown one Madanlal
Parate as a coaccused and coapplicant in the said
criminal matter and also got affidavit swear through in
the hands and signature of said Madanlal Parate (the
fake accused, who was never a coaccused in said
Criminal case with Devendra). Devendra through his
G.P./college mate (Advocate in Election Petition) Smt.
Bharti Dangre and other A.G.P. also made secret
communication with the Judges including Shri B.R.
Gavai J for decision of one application filed therein.
3. Devendra is having friendly/social/Advocate with
senior counsel Adv. K.H. Deshpande, Adv. Mohan
Sudame, Adv. Akshay Sudame. One Election Petition
no.1/2014 filed before the Nagpur bench of Bombay
High Court for challenging the election of Devendra on
the ground of non disclosure of criminal cases pending
against him in the Criminal Courts. The said Election
Petition came to be allotted to Shri R.K. Deshpande, J
(who is a son of Adv. K.H. Deshpande, father in law of
Adv. Akshay Sudame, father in law of son's of Adv.
Mohan Sudame). Devendra Fadnavis knowingly not
disclose the said relations before the High Court and the
opponent therein and filed the application for rejection
of plaint & got relief from the said judge of High Court.
4. It was a duty of Devendra Fadnavis to bring on the
record of High Court and in the knowledge of the
opponent about his relations with the family members
of the above judges. Devendra not disclosed the above
facts and took disadvantage as a outcome of such
relations and committed Criminal Conspiracy,
Misleading & Fraud on CourtInstitution of Justice, the
opponent including Adv. Satish Uke, Nagpur and Public
at large by showing his image clean & clearn.
Devendra is showing and posing his image clean and
clear and committed cheating with public at large.
5. The copies if attached documents with Hindu
version of the above facts are showing the factual
position of nature and act of Mr. 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 selfrestraint.
33. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Roshan
Lal Ahuja, In Re, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 446, the Apex
Court was considering the allegations made in the memorandum of
writ petition and in the representation made before the President
of India containing scurrilous and indecent attacks on the Court as
well as on the Judges of the Court in wild, intemperate and abusive
language. The Court found that the language used in the offending
documents has not only the effect of scandalizing and lowering the
authority of the Court in relation to judicial matters but also has
the effect of substantially interfering with and obstructing the
administration of justice. The Court holds that the unfounded and
unwarranted aspersions on the impartiality and ability of the
Judges of the Court to render justice has the tendency to
undermine the authority of the Court and create a distrust in the
public mind as to the capacity of Judges of the Court to mete out
evenhanded justice. The Court holds that the remarks made by
the contemner are disparaging in character and derogatory to the
dignity of the Court and besides scandalising the Court in relation
to judicial matters have the tendency to shake the confidence of the
public in the Apex Court.
34. Para 11 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced
below :
“11. The tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial
officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure an order
which they desire is on the increase and it is high time that
serious note is taken of the same. No latitude can be given
to a litigant to browbeat the court. Merely because a party
chooses to appear in person, it does not give him a licence
to indulge in making such aspersions as have the tendency
to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters.”
35. In para 12 of the said decision, the Apex Court has
observed as under :
“12. … However, when from the criticism a deliberate,
motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring
down the image of the 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 bester themselves to uphold their dignity and the
majesty of law. No litigant can be permitted to overstep the
limits of fair, bona fide and reasonable criticism of a
judgment and bring 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 in the case of Jaswant Singh v. Virender
Singh and others, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 384, the Apex
Court was dealing with the aspersions cast on the learned Judge of
the High Court dealing with the election petition. Para 33 of the
said decision being relevant, is reproduced below :
“33. Thereafter, the appellant as already noticed, filed a
transfer petition in this Court which was dismissed on
3081993. The transfer petition like the application (supra)
cast aspersions on the learned Judge in the discharge of his
judicial functions and had the tendency to scandalise the
Court. It was an attempt to browbeat the learned Judge of the
High Court and cause interference in the conduct of a fair trial.
Not only are the aspersions derogatory, scandalous and
uncalled for but they also tend to bring the authority and
administration of law into disrespect. The contents of the
application seeking stay as also of the transfer petition, bring
the court into disrepute and are an affront to the majesty of
law and offend the dignity of the court. The appellant is an
advocate and it is painful that by filing the application and the
petition as a party in person, couched in an objectionable
language, he permitted himself the liberty of indulging in an
action, which ill behoves him and does little credit to the noble
profession to which he belongs. An advocate has no wider
protection than a layman when he commits an act which
amounts to contempt of court. It is most unbefitting for an
advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because
he does not get the expected result, which according to him is
the fair and reasonable result available to him. Judges cannot
be intimidated to seek favourable orders. Only because a
lawyer appears as a party in person, he does not get a licence
thereby to commit contempt of the court by intimidating the
Judges or scandalising the courts. He cannot use language,
either in the pleadings or during arguments, which is either
intemperate or unparliamentary. These safeguards are not for
the protection of any Judge individually but are essential for
maintaining the dignity and decorum of the courts and for
upholding the majesty of law. Judges and courts are not
unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of
their judgments. Fair comments, even if, outspoken, but made
without any malice or attempting to impair the administration
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 to deal with the matter and the question of barring
an advocate from practising before the High Court in exercise of
the inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Paras 238 and 239 of the said decision being relevant, are
reproduced below :
“238. In Supreme Court Bar Assn. the direction prohibiting an
advocate from appearing in court for a specified period was
viewed as a total and complete denial of his right to practise
law and the bar was considered as a punishment inflicted on
him. In Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal it was seen not as punishment
for professional misconduct but as a measure necessary to
regulate the court's proceedings and to maintain the dignity
and orderly functioning of the courts. We may respectfully add
that in a given case a direction disallowing an advocate who is
convicted of criminal contempt from appearing in court may
not only be a measure to maintain the dignity and orderly
functioning of the courts but may become necessary for the
selfprotection of the court and for preservation of the purity of
court proceedings. Let us, for example, take the case where an
advocate is shown to have accepted money in the name of a
judge or on the pretext of influencing him; or where an
advocate is found tampering with the court's record; or where
an advocate is found actively taking part in faking court orders
(fake bail orders are not unknown in several High Courts!); or
where an advocate has made it into a practice to browbeat and
abuse judges and on that basis has earned the reputation to
get a case transferred from an “inconvnient” court; or where
an advocate is found to be in the habit of sending unfounded
and unsubstantiated allegation petitions against judicial
officers and judges to the superior courts. Unfortunately these
examples are not from imagination. These things are
happening more frequently than we care to acknowledge.”
“239. We may also add that these illustrations are not
exhaustive but there may be other ways in which a
malefactor's conduct and actions may pose a real and
imminent threat to the purity of court proceedings, cardinal to
any court's functioning, apart from constituting a substantive
offence and contempt of court and professional misconduct. In
such a situation the court does not only have the right but it
also has the obligation cast upon it to protect itself and 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 politician for a period of almost 60 years. If
a father of a judge happens to be a politician and after the
mortal remains are brought to his residence and if the
politicians visit the residence to pay their last respect, is it
the expectation of the applicant, that the judge concerned
should ask the guards at his house to stop the visitors and
politicians.”
“18. … The present order along with the copies of all
the relevant proceedings shall be forwarded forthwith to the
Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of this Court, the learned
Advocate General of Maharashtra, the Chairman of the Bar
Council of Maharashtra and Goa for considering as to
whether anything needs to be done in the matter.”
39. The applicant himself is a practising lawyer at Nagpur
Bench of Bombay High Court. From the office of this Court, I have
called the information about the cases in which the applicant is
appearing in person either as the applicant or as the respondent.
The numbers of these matters are given as under :
Case No./Crime No.
Criminal Application
No.1323/2010
Criminal Application
No.1916/2010
Criminal Application
No.1915/2010
Criminal Application
No.1884/2010
Criminal Application
No.1951/2010
Criminal Application
No.1952/2010
Criminal Application
No.1950/2010
Criminal Writ Petition
No.294/2011
Criminal Writ Petition
No.441/2010
Criminal Writ Petition
No.618/2005
(Decided)
Criminal Contempt
Petition No.2/2015 in
APL No.491/2013
Criminal Application
(APPP) No.955/2014
in Criminal
Application (APL)
No.258/2013
(Decided) with
Criminal Application
(APL) No.491/2013
Criminal Application
(APPP) No.40/2015
in Cri. Application
(APPP)
No.1081/2015 (D) in
Criminal Application
No.45/2015 (D) in
Criminal Application
(APL) No.824/2014
(Decided)
Cri. Contempt Petition
No.2/2013
Civil Writ Petition
No.2760/2015
Criminal Application
No.1192/2008
Criminal Writ Petition
No.23/2002
Criminal Writ Petition
No.110/2015
Criminal APL
No.157/2014
Criminal Writ Petition
No.1078/2014
Criminal Writ Petition
No.166/2006
Criminal Writ Petition
No.411/2010
Criminal Writ Petition
No.419/2010
Civil Writ Petition
No.6195/2015
The credentials of the applicant can be understood from the above
criminal cases to which he is a party in person. There are hardly
any matters, wherein he is representing any party 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
252016 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 Fadnavis, the officers of the Court, including the
Government Pleader and the Registrar. This is a definite act of
misleading the Apex Court that henceforth no such activity shall be
carried. In the absence of such representation, one does not know
what would have been the fate of the Transfer Petition filed before
the Apex Court.
42. The object, intent and motive behind it seems to be only
to malign the image of the judiciary. The attention of the Judges is
distracted by such interference in the administration of justice.
Various publications by the applicant cause an embarrassment and
create a distrust in the public mind as to the impartial capacity of
the Judges of the Court to mete out evenhanded justice. The
activities of the applicant are posing a real and imminent threat to
the purity of the Court proceedings. The allegations made are
affront to the majesty of law and offend the dignity of the Court.
43. In the light of the facts of this case, and the law laid down
by the Apex Court, I propose to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to frame the
following draft charges against the applicantSatish Mahadeorao
Uke for the act of the contempt of Court :
(1) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have instituted
various civil and criminal proceedings in this Court,
against the sitting Judges of this Court, the officers of this
Court, including lawyers and the Registrar, as are pointed
out in this order, which are frivolous and vexatious and
thereby you have committed an act of abuse of process of
the Court, amounting to contempt of Court.
(2) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have made
statements of facts before this Court recorded in the
orders dated 2042016 and 2542016 and contained in
Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2016 and the pursis
Stamp Nos.5462 of 2016 and 5811 of 2016, which you
knew and believed to be false, so as to browbeat this
Court on the basis of a false case of recusal and indulging
in the activity of benchhunting.
(3) In various litigations as are instituted and the
publications, which are referred to in this order, you,
Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have used wild, intemperate,
unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible allegations
scandalizing the Court and making a scurrilous attack on
the Judges in person and the officers of the Court,
including the Government Pleader, other 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 has been held that the Court has power to disallow
advocate convicted in criminal contempt from appearing in Court.
The Apex Court added in para 239 of the said decision that the
Court does not only have the right but it also has the obligation
cast upon it to protect itself and 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.
45. In terms of Rule 5 in Part II of the Rules to regulate
proceedings for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this order can
constitute an information for taking suo motu action for contempt
of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and it will
have to be accordingly placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of
Bombay High Court for appropriate orders in terms of clauses 5(f)
and 5(g) of the said Rules. Hence, I pass the following order :
(1) Issue notice to the applicantSatish Mahadeorao
Uke to show cause as to why the proceedings for criminal
contempt should not be instituted against him for the
draft charges framed in this order? Notice is made
returnable on 182016.
(2) This order be placed before Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of Bombay High Court in terms of clauses 5(f) and
5(g) of the Rules under Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay
High Court Appellate Side Rules to constitute the
appropriate Division Bench, as required by Section 18 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, to take cognizance of the act
of contempt of Court by treating this order itself as a
petition for contempt of Court, in accordance with law
and Satish Mahadeorao Uke be shown as the contemnor.
(3) The Division Bench assigned with the matter may
consider the question of taking Satish Mahadeorao Uke in
judicial custody pending the decision of the contempt
proceedings to prevent him from instituting such
proceedings and/or publicizing the allegations against
sitting Judges, officers of this Court, including lawyers
practising in this Court, so as to cause an embarrassment
and interference in the course of justice.
(4) During the pendency of the proceedings before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice and/or before the Division
Bench of this Court for taking decision on the cognizance
of contempt of Court, the applicantSatish Mahadeorao
Uke, who shall be the 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 the instance of Satish Mahadeorao Uke in respect
of the matters not related to the draft charges levelled in
this order.
(7) The ad interim orders in terms of clauses (4)
and (5) above, shall operate from today, i.e. 662016,
and the same shall continue to operate till the decision on
it by the Division Bench. All the aforesaid ad interim
orders are subject to further orders to be passed by the
Division Bench, which shall be assigned this matter by
Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Unless the orders are varied,
the same shall continue to operate pending these
proceedings.
JUDGE.
No comments:
Post a Comment