Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 26 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-06

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order The show cause replies filed on behalf of the opposite parties, claims that the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5906 of 2007, has been complied with, inasmuch as a notice was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanation and in response to this, the petitioner had submitted in compliance of the directions contained in the impugned order, the petitioner has been fully informed as to why his candidature has not been considered and he was given an opportunity to explain his position in compliance of natural justice. 2. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the aforesaid statement, as contained in the show cause replies, is misconceived, misleading and virtually amounts to contempt of court. Learned counsel explains that the contents of the letter, referred to in the show cause replies, namely, Annexure-A, is virtually a repetition of the contents of the earlier letter by which, the petitioner's candidature was cancelled and which was earlier quashed by the impugned order of this Court. Learned counsel explains further that the contents of the letter (Annexure-A) amply demonstrates that the respondents have acted with a preconceived and predisposed mind and have declared that the petitioner's candidature has been cancelled, leaving thereby no scope or room for the petitioner to explain his case or to show cause as to why his candidature should not be cancelled. 3. Counsel for the opposite parties submits that the letter (Annexure-A) purports to comply with the observations contained in the impugned order of this Court. 4. I have gone through the contents 01 this letter (Annexure-A) and find that the same, are virtually the same as was contained in the earlier letter, which was quashed by the order of this Court. The purported compliance of the directions contained in the impugned order is obviously a pretense and not a compliance in letter and spirit, of the observations recorded in the impugned order of this Court. I am not satisfied with the show cause replies. Issue notice to the opposite• party, namely, the concerned Superintendent of Police, Giridih-cum-Chairman, Hazaribagh Constable Selection Board to appear in person and explain by filing his show cause replies as to why contempt proceeding should not be initiated against him. 5. Let this case be posted on 21.1.2010. 6. I am not satisfied with the show cause replies. Issue notice to the opposite• party, namely, the concerned Superintendent of Police, Giridih-cum-Chairman, Hazaribagh Constable Selection Board to appear in person and explain by filing his show cause replies as to why contempt proceeding should not be initiated against him. 5. Let this case be posted on 21.1.2010. 6. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the opposite party.