Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH CHANDRA versus SRI O.N. SRIVASTAVA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramesh Chandra v. Sri O.N. Srivastava - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 1394 of 1993 [2004] RD-AH 205 (7 April 2004)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.50

Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 1394 of 1993

Ramesh Chandra      ................................Applicant-Petitioner

Versus

Sri O.N. Srivastava         ...........................Respondent.

*****

Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.

The present Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, inter-alia, prayed that the Opposite Party be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by flouting the order dated 30th March, 1993 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13921 of 1993.

The Contempt Petition was filed impleading O.N. Srivastava as the Opposite Party in the Contempt Petition.

It is, inter-alia, alleged in the Affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition that the petitioner-applicant was appointed as Ward-Boy in the year 1985, and thereafter, he was appointed as Chowkidar on the substantive vacancy but the service of the petitioner-applicant was terminated without assigning any reason and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-applicant ; and that the petitioner-applicant preferred an appeal before the Opposite Party (O.N. Srivastava) ; and that the appeal of the petitioner-applicant was not decided despite repeated representations ; and that after waiting for a long time, the petitioner-applicant filed a Writ Petition before this Court being the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13921 of 1993 ; and that the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 30th March, 1993, inter-alia, directing the respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition (namely, Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Agra Division, Agra ) to decide the representation of the petitioner-applicant within the period mentioned in the said order dated 30th March, 1993. Copy of the said order dated 30th March, 1993 passed by this Court in the said Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 13921 of 1993 has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the Affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition.

By the order dated 25th August, 1993, notice was directed to be issued  to the Opposite Party (O. N. Srivastava) to show cause as to why the contempt proceedings be not taken against him.

The said order dated 25th August, 1993 is quoted below :

^^izR;FkhZ ds uke bl vk'k; dk uksfVl tkjh gks fd og 4 lIrkg ds vUnj izfr'kiFk i= }kjk dkj.k n'kkZ;s fd muds fo:) D;ks u U;k;ky; voekuuk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkos\

fnukad 14&10&93 dks vaxhdj.k@lquokbZ gsrq lwphc) gksA

fnukad 25&8&93                g0@ vLi"V**

In the meantime, it appears that the petitioner-applicant filed an application, inter-alia, praying for impleading Satguru Saran, Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Agra as the Opposite Party No.2 in the Contempt Petition.

By the order dated 10th October, 1995, the said Satguru Saran was impleaded as the Opposite Party No.2 in the Contempt Petition, and notice was directed to be issued to the said Opposite Party No.2 (Satguru Saran).

The said order dated 10th October, 1995 is quoted below :

"Sri Satguru Saran, Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Agra is impleaded here as opposite party No.2 and he is directed to ensure the compliance of the order passed by this Court on 30-3-1993 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Issue notice to opposite party No.2 who may file counter affidavit in the meantime.

List in the week commencing 11th December, 1995."

In response to the notice issued pursuant to the said order dated 10th October, 1995, the said Satguru Saran (Opposite Party No.2) has put in appearance and filed his Counter affidavit, sworn on 27th January, 1996.

It is, inter-alia, stated in paragraph 13 of the aforesaid Counter Affidavit that the then Additional Director retired on 31st March, 1994 ; and that as soon as after taking charge, the Opposite Party No.2 came to know about the matter, the representation of the petitioner-applicant dated 5th February, 1988 was disposed of by the Office Order No.5-A Ni/Ko.Ke./95-8729-31 dated 5/6-12-1995 ; and that the copy of the said Office Order was sent to the petitioner-applicant by Registered Post.

Reasons for the delay in complying with the directions given by this Court in the said order dated 30th March, 1993 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13921 of 1993 have also been stated in the said Counter Affidavit.

Nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner-applicant to show that the averments made in the said Counter Affidavit are not correct.

None is present on behalf of the petitioner-applicant today to press the Contempt Petition.

In the circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the said Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2.

It is, thus, evident that the directions given in the said order dated 30th March, 1993 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13921 of  1993 have been complied with by the Opposite Party No.2. Reasons for the delay in complying with the said directions have been stated in the said Counter Affidavit, and it is evident that the delay is neither deliberate nor wilful.

In the circumstances, the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for having committed contempt of this Court.

It is note-worthy that Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inter-alia, requires wilful disobedience to any judgment, order etc. Section 2 (b) is quoted below :

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) .................................................................

(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or  other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court;

(c) ...............................................................

(d) ..................................................................."

Therefore, mere disobedience to any judgment, order etc. will not make a person liable for contempt of Court. It is only when such disobedience is found to be wilful, that the person will be liable for contempt of Court.

In the present case, as held above, the delay in complying with the directions given in the said order dated 30th March, 1993 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition 13921 of 1993 is neither wilful nor deliberate.

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for having committed contempt of this Court, and the show-cause notices issued to the Opposite Parties are liable to be discharged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the show-cause notices issued to the Opposite Parties are discharged. The Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Dt. 08-04-2004/AK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.