Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DIBAKAH SATPATHY versus HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Decided
14 March 1961
Judges listed
K. SUBBA RAO (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1962] 1 S.C.R. 326 · 1961 INSC 93

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

MuDHOLKAR, J.-The appellant who, at the relevant time, was Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Orissa, has been admonished for contempt of court and directed to pay the costs of the proceedings before the High Court of Orissa. The occasion for the institution of contempt proceedings against the appellant was the circulation of the view of the Legal Remembr- · ancer and the Advocate-General to the District

pp. 326–327

, ' ' f 0 ' d t d ' Magistrates o t e f h N ort h ern Div1s10n o nssa a e January 19, 1955, in which the following endorsement appears:

p. 327

"I am directed to enclose copies of the opinions of the Legal Remembrancer and of the Advocate General and to say that the Law Department are of opinion that no special authorization is necessary to empower Magistrates to take cognizance under section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. This may be followed until the matter is carried to the High Court in some case, so that the confusion created by the Orissa High Court decision reported in All India Reporter 1951 Orissa, page 40 might be set

p. 327

at rest." This endorsement bears the signature of the appellant.

p. 327

After the attention of the High Court was drawn: to the aforesaid endorsement it caused notices to be issued not only to the Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue but also to the Legal Remembrancer of Orissa to show cause way they should not be committed for contempt. Both of them showed cause. The High Court absolved the Legal Remembrancer but convicted the appellant and admonished him, as already stated. It may be mentioned that both of them had tendered apologies to the High Court. Even so, we think that the appellant was rightly found guilty of contempt of court and admonished as well as required to pay the costs of the proceedings .

p. 327

The point on which the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer was sought was whether a Magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate to take cognisance of offences under s. 190, Code of Criminal Procedure, can be regarded as a Magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate as contemplated by s. 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. In the case referred to in the endorsement of the appellant, the Orissa High Court had taken the view following the decision in Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab (')that authorisation is necessary. The decision in Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab (')was dissented from in Budhan Mahto v. lssur Singh(') and it does not appear that this fact was brought to the notice of the Orissa High Court. The Legal Remembrancer to whom the matter was referred submitted a

pp. 327–328

h d" note w ic , accor mg to the High Court, was "something ambiguous and did not deal with all questionsconsequential and ancillary". In spite of that the appellant, in his endorsement, gave a direction to the Magistrates to igno,·e the decision of the High Court even though that was binding on them. We have not the least doubt that suoh a direction is a flagrant interference with the administration of justice by courts and a clear contempt of court. Upon this view we dismiss the appeal.

p. 328, margin H

Appeal dismissed. MAJOR GOP AL SINGH AND OTHERS

p. 328, margin H

v. CUSTODIAN, EVACUE.E PROPERTY, PUNJAB (K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and

p. 328, margin H

J. R. MUDJIOLKAR, JJ.)

p. 328, margin H

Evacuee Property-Quasi-permanent allotment-Cancellation of -Custodian General, powers of-Enactment vesting evacuee property in Central Government-If Custodian General still has power to cancel allotment-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, r950 (JI of r950), ss. 27 -Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, I954 (44 of r954), ss. I2, 19.

p. 328, margin H

The appellants who are displaced persons from West Pakistan, were granted quasi-permanent allotment of some lands in village Raikot in 1949· On October 31, 1952, the Assistant Custodian cancelled the allotment of 14 allottees in village Karodian, and also cancelled the allotment of the appellants in Raikot but allotted lands to them in village Karodian, and allotted the lands of Raikot to other persons. The 14 allottees of village Karodian as well as the appellants applied for review of the orders of cancellation of itheir allotment. The application of the 14 allottees was dismissed. They preferred a revision to the Custodian General who cancelled the appellant's allotment

p. 328, margin H