Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANGEE RAM AGARWAL versus SRI SHASHI KUMAR CHAIRMAN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mangee Ram Agarwal v. Sri Shashi Kumar Chairman-Cum-M.D. And Another - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 2597 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2406 (6 September 2005)

 

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. 48

Civil Contempt Petition No. 2597 of 2005

Mangee Ram Agarwal.....................Petitioner

Versus

Sri Shashi Kumar and another ........... Opposite Parties.

******

Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.

Pursuant to the order dated 26th August, 2005, the case has been put up as fresh case today.

Supplementary Affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the petitioner-applicant.

Let the Supplementary Affidavit be taken on record.

The present Contempt Petition has been filed, inter-alia, praying for punishing the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 for allegedly committing contempt of this Court by disobeying the order dated 9th December, 2004 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52292 of 2004.

Copy of the said order dated 9th December, 2004 has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the Contempt Petition.

The said order dated 9th December, 2004 is reproduced below:

"This writ petition has been filed raising a large number of grievances against the punishment that had been imposed. However, the appeal/representation against the impugned order is pending consideration before the respondent No.5.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent No.5 to decide the said appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order by a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law and communicate the result to the petitioner forthwith."

It may be mentioned that the Respondent No.5 referred to in the said order dated 9th December, 2004 is "Board of Directors, Coal India Ltd., Kolkatta, West Bengal."

It is thus evident that by the said order dated 9th December, 2004, the Board of Directors, Coal India Ltd., Kolkatta, West Bengal was directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner-applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of the said order dated 9th December, 2004 by a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.

A perusal of the averments made in paragraph 9 of the aforementioned Supplementary Affidavit filed today shows that the petitioner-applicant has received a letter dated 22nd August, 2005 from the General Manager (P & I R), Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli, inter-alia, intimating that on 5th July, 2005, the Board of Directors has considered the appeal of the petitioner-applicant, and rejected the said appeal. Copy of the said letter dated 22nd August, 2005 has been filed as Annexure 1 to the said Supplementary Affidavit.

In the said letter dated 22nd August, 2005, it was, inter-alia, stated that "..............in 222nd meeting of CIL Board of Directors held  on 5-7-2005 the Board considered your appeal and after detailed deliberation,  came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was just and proper.

I have heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and perused the record.

It is thus evident that the Board of Directors has decided the appeal of the petitioner-applicant on 5th July, 2005 pursuant to the directions given in the said order dated 9th December, 2004 passed by this Court, and the intimation in this regard has been given to the petitioner-applicant by the said letter dated 22nd August, 2005.

Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant submits that the said letter dated 22nd August, 2005 is not a speaking and reasoned order, as required to be passed by the order dated 9th December, 2004 passed by this Court in the aforementioned Writ Petition.

I have considered the submission made by Sri Srivastava.

A perusal of the contempt of the said letter dated 22nd August, 2005 shows that the said letter is an intimation of the decision of the Board of Directors taken on 5th July, 2005.

In my opinion, if the petitioner-applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Directors taken on 5th July, 2005, it is open to the petitioner-applicant to challenge the said decision in appropriate forum. Correctness or otherwise of the said decision cannot be examined in the present contempt proceedings.

In view of the aforesaid, particularly, in view of the fact that the order dated 9th December, 2004 passed by this Court has been complied with, there is no occasion or sufficient reason to proceed further with the present Contempt Petition against the opposite parties.

The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt.6-9-05/Contempt Petn.2597-05/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.