Civil Judge who neglected binding precedents let off by Bombay High Court with a cautionary note

A contempt petition against a civil Judge for passing orders while disregarding binding precedents of superior courts was disposed of by the Bombay High Court on Thursday with the hope that the errant judge "will exercise his judicious mind" in the future. .The Bench of Justices SS Shinde and VG Bisht added that the judge's performance should be monitored for a year by the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge. .The petitioner, advocate Yogesh Waman Athavale, told the High Court that the Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chiplun, District Ratnagiri had been willfully and consistently ignoring and not following the binding precedents cited by him in various cases..Advocate SR Nargolkar, representing the Bombay High Court, informed the Bench that the civil judge has since been summoned by the concerned guardian judge and suitable counselled. Therefore, he submitted that nothing remains in the petition and the same may be disposed of. .On examining the orders in controversy, Justices Shinde and Bisht concluded that prima facie the petitioner's counsel appeared to be right in lamenting about the civil judge's approach and his disregrad of authortitative pronouncements. The Bench observed, ."Common sense would prompt the conclusion that respondent No.1 ought to have carefully gone through the decisions and the ratio laid down therein and then would have formed opinion about applicability or otherwise of the same. Unfortunately, it is clear that exercise was not properly undertaken and orders came to be passed in oblivion of the pronouncements/ provisions.".The High Court found one such order to be tellingly silent on authoritative precedents. In another case, while the judgments relied on by advocate Athavale (petitioner) were referred to, there was "no clarity as to how those judgments were distinguishable and not applicable to the case in question." ."This is not the way of differentiating the authorities vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances of the case in hand", the High Court said. .All the same, the High Court found that while the civil judge's conduct was negligent, it could not be termed "willful breach” or “willful disobedience” to warrant hauling him for contempt..In view of this and since the judge had already been counselled, the High Court disposed of the contempt plea while confining to directing that the civil judge's performance be monitored for a year. The order reads:."We hope and trust that in future respondent No.1 (civil judge) will exercise his judicious mind while dealing with judicial work with greater care, caution and circumspection. We issue direction to learned Principal District and Sessions Judge with a request to monitor the performance of respondent No.1 for one year henceforth by randomly checking the judgments and orders and keep the High Court informed, if required, for necessary action.".Advocate Murlidhar L Patil appeared for the petitioner. AGP Tanaya Goswami appeared for the State. .[Read order]