Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 358 (JHR)

Awadesh Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-05-10

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Head Mr. Ughal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Laik, Sr. S.C.-I for the State. 2. By order dated 5.11.2004 notices were issued to O.P. No. 7 to show cause as why he be not proceeded against under the Contempt of Court Act for disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6783/2002. 3. Pursuant thereto a show cause has been filed by opposite party No. 7. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that by Annexure-I to the contempt application this Court while disposing of W.P.(S) No. 6783/2002 on 12/3.2004 held as follows : "In that view of the matter, at this stage it cannot be said that the authorities have come to a definite conclusion that the appointment letter of the petitioner was a forged one and therefore his appointment was invalid. In view of the admitted position that no order terminating the service of the petitioner has been served on him, I direct that the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner till the date he is not terminated from his service. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is disposed of." 5. But even after expiry of more than one year the State authorities have not obeyed the order and direction passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and, therefore, it is clear that they have deliberately violated the order and direction of this Court and thereby have committed the contempt of this Court for which they must be adequately punished. 6. In the show cause filed by O.P. No. 7, i.e. Dr. Bindeshwar Rajak, Incharge Medical Officer, Leprosy Control Unit, Hiranpur, Pakur, the main pleas has been taken that against the impugned order dated 12.3.2004 in the aforesaid writ petition, a Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 91/2005 along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the opposite parties and the same is pending and the State is awaiting for the decision in the said L.P.A. 7. Mr. M.K. Laik, learned Sr. Mr. M.K. Laik, learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for O.P. No. 7 by relying on the decision in the case of Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. and another v. Sachidanand Dass and another reported in 1995 Suppl (4) SCC 465 submitted that since the Letter Patent Appeal is pending for disposal and, therefore, no contempt proceeding would lie. 8. Mr. Ughal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 91/ 2005 has been filed only after the present contempt case was filed by the petitioner and that also after an inordinate delay of one year. The L.P.A. is hopelessly time barred. Therefore, it is clear that only to save their skin from the result of the contempt proceeding the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the opposite parties. 9. From perusal of the judgments of the Supreme Court cited by Mr. Laik it appears that the same is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case admittedly, the Letters Patent Appeal was filed after a delay of about one year and it does not appear that the opposite parties have taken any step for listing the L.P.A. or even the petition for condonation of delay on at early date, therefore, it does not appear bona fide on the part of the opposite parties. As it appears from the judgment of the Supreme Court that during pendency of the appeal against the order of the single Judge a proceeding for contempt was filed/initiated whereas in the present case admittedly, only after filing of this contempt application of opposite parties have filed the Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore, this case is on totally different circumstances. 10. In view of the above, fact, I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for initiating the proceedings for contempt of this Court against O.P. No. 7. 11. Accordingly, a proceeding for contempt is initiated against O.P. No. 7 Dr. Therefore, this case is on totally different circumstances. 10. In view of the above, fact, I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for initiating the proceedings for contempt of this Court against O.P. No. 7. 11. Accordingly, a proceeding for contempt is initiated against O.P. No. 7 Dr. Bindeshwar Rajak, Incharge Medical Officer, Leprosy Control Unit, Hiranpur, Pakur and he is directed to show cause, if any, as to why he be not punished for committing contempt of this Court for deliberated violating the order and direction of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 6783/2002 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.