Law: Contempt of Court Act, 1976

Section: 3

Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)--- ----S. 3---Contempt of Court---Judicial Officer---Rent Controller while executing ejectment order given by High Court passed certain order with regard to refund of amount deposited  with  landlord  in  ordinary  course  of law---Findings bf Rent Controller were arrived at in exercise of quasi-judicial powers without any appearance of disregard of authority of High Court-- Finding of Rent Controller, could. be right or wrong, but that was not in disregard of order of High Court---Rent Controller, in circumstances, had not committed any contempt of Court---Unless case was extraordinary,. a Judicial Officer or a quasi-Judicial Officer, could not be treated to have committed contempt. Abdul Majeed Khan for Petitioner. ORDER This is an application under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Action by way of contempt is sought against the respondent No. 1 who is the landlady of the premises together with her husband and the learned Controller, the last two of whom have been cited as respondents Nos. 2 and 3. In the first place, it is a matter of serious concern to me that whereas in the F.RA. there is only one respondent namely Syeda Raisa Fatima who is the landlady the other two alleged contemners namely, Syed Zaheer `Abbas Zaidi and the learned IIlrd Controller have been cited in the title   of the application not as alleged contemners but as two other respondents. This is factually incorrect and what is more on account of pressure of work with which the Courts are over-burdened a description of this character is capable of occasioning an inadvertent notice of contempt to a judicial officer who may have acted merely in the performance of his duties. I would, therefore, caution those concerned to be careful because procedural deviations of this character, seemingly innocent, can be very dangerous and may themselves constitute contempt. As to the merits of the controversy what is urged is that the learned Controller as well as the landlady and her husband have violated the order of this Court dated 12-1-1993.and more particularly the under-noted portion:-- "Before parting with the…