1969 PLP 43 (SCMR)

Date of hearing : 11th November 1968. ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑This proceeding under Article 123 of the Constitution for a contempt of this Court was started suo motu against the respondent as he filed or sent a number of miscel laneous applications and petitions resting with a .letter addressed to one of us which was considered to be couched in contumacious language. The contemner was a respondent in an appeal which was heard along with several others filed by the Government of West Pakistan and others Provincial authorities challenging a consoli dated judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan whereby a number of writ petitions filed by employees of the said appellants challenging orders of compulsory retirement passed in respect of them were declared unlawful. The appeals were dismissed by this Court on the 11th April 1968. The respondent filed an application for review of the judgment of this Court on the ground that two questions which arose in his case, namely, (i) that he had a legal right to the payment of salary as on duty from the date of his illegal retirement from service and (ii) that the action against him had been taken mala fide had not been considered in the judgment. The review petition was dismissed on the 10th October 1968 as barred by time and on merits. The contemner after the order was announced filed and sent a number of miscellaneous applications and personal letters addressed to the learned Chief Justice and one of us (Mr. Justice Hamoodur Rahman) in which he expressed his dis satisfaction for the failure of this Court to give the reliefs asked for in the review petition. The language used in some of these documents is undoubtedly contumacious in nature. In view however of the order that we propose to make in this case we feel it unnecessary to examine the same in detail. At the same time we want to emphasise that the attitude taken by the contemner after his review application was heard and the decision of the Court was announced could not be allowed to go un noticed. He clearly cast reflection on the manner in which justice is administered in this Court. He did not hesitate to indulge in an exclamation like "what a surprising manifestation of dispensation of justice according to law at the highest judicial forum in Pakistan". He did all this only because the Court did not decide his case in the manner in which he wanted it to be disposed of. He is, therefore, guilty of contempt of Court. Litigants should know that Courts in this country dispose of cases according to the law of the land and following certain procedures. No one should expect them to depart from this course. Any one who criticises the manner of dispensation of justice and that also in unbecoming language and casts reflection on the Judges renders himself liable for contempt of Court. Lastly it must be clearly understood that Judges do not appreciate the practice of letters being written directly to them by litigants. This may amount to a contempt of Court whenever it can be gathered that the purpose was to influence the decision of the addressee in a pending case. The contemner in this case has tendered unqualified apology. He personally appeared before us and was found to be repentant. In view of this we do not propose to award any sentence on him. He is let off with a warning. Order accordingly.