High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mohd. Usman Khan v. Shakil Ahmad And Others - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 1162 of 2002  RD-AH 3550 (1 March 2007)
Court No. 30.
Civil. Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1162 of 2002.
Mohd. Usman Khan Vs. Shakil Ahd. & others.
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
In this contempt petition, the petitioner had made a complaint that the order dated 15.10.1984 in second appeal no. 2424 of 1984 between Mohd. Usman Khan and Kabir Ahmad and others, directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to a civil dispute was violated that the respondent continued to make unauthorized construction and completed wall inspite of the service of the interim order upon him.
In the course of first hearing the Court has come across restraint form titled under section 3 of the Arbitration Act "Sambhavit Vivad ke Mamlon Me Sulahnama". This printed form mentions the name of parties, nature of the dispute and that the substance of the compromise are mentioned in column no. 6. It bears the seal of the police station. The Court as such called the Senior Superintendent of Police to file affidavit to show cause as to under what authority such procedure is followed by the District Police of Gorakhpur. This kind of procedure is not provided in the Old Arbitration Act or 1940 or the New Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 nor in the Police Regulation or in Code of Criminal Procedure.
In response, Sri Sujan Vir Singh, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur has filed an affidavit stating in pragraph 2 that in order to maintain peace in the civil matters in which many time aggravated and causing increase in the crime, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur passed an order on 31.1.2001 to make an experiment for makaing compromise between the parties. Sri Surya Kumar, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur issued an order providing for method of resolving the dispute between the parties. In this order it was also
provided that the police officers will be given regard for solving the dispute.
The Court dismade this noble method. He does not appear to sign on the matter. Prima facie it appears to be devoice to be reduced the statics of crimes in the district. The prevalent system does not provide that the dispute where the parties engaged in civil dispute in the court of law can be asked by the police to sit at the police station and settle the dispute. The method of dispute and resolution provided in section 89 C.P.C to be resolved to by the Civil Court, following the rules of procedure laid down in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 set out in great deal. The interim order of the Apex Court in Power Association Case, these matters cannot be left in the hands of unexperienced person exercising powers and using extra-legal method for the parties for maintaining peace and law.
The Courts dislike that the parties resolve every dispute in the police station under the shadow of the authority of the police. Such an exercise is extra-ordinary tenancy as it were unconstitutional authority to be used by the police authorities. The law does not find it fair arbitration under the shadow of the police authority under the police station. Although it is stated that the police have stopped this method, the court takes serious notice of the extra-constitutional attempt made by the police to take the recourse to the methods at the whims of the police officers .
Issue notice to the private respondents to show cause as to why action be not taken against them for committing contempt of the order dated 15.10.1984. Notice shall also be issued to Sri Bua Singh, Director General of Police and Sri Surya Kumar the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhur Region, Gorakhpur through the Director General of Police to be served upon him where-ever he is posted to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for adopting unconstitutional method of resolving the civil dispute and thereafter scandaling the police by the method and to the authority of the Court. The notice shall be returnable on 27.2.2007.
The parties except Sri Surya Kumar are not required to appear in person. Sri Surya Kumar will, however, appear in person and submit his explanation to the Court.
A copy of this order be given to Sri M.S. Pipersenia, learned Standing Counsel for compliance free of cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.