Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 50 (GAU)

BINJUMA DAS v. A. B. MD. EUNUS

2014-01-20

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Education, appearing for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition is filed under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 read with the provisions of Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner of WP(C) 6480 of 2007 decided by the learned Single Judge on 28.05.2009. 3. By the order under consideration out of which this contempt petition arises, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. The operative part of the order dated 28.05.2009 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 6480 of 2007 reads as follows: “In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to issue necessary direction. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the salaries and all other consequential service benefit, in terms of the order dated 12.12.2003 passed in WP(C) No.5449 of 2001 and the order dated 26.09.2003 passed in WP(C) No.5579 of 2001 without further delay. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt application complains that despite petitioner serving a legal notice on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 28.05.2009 for its implementation by a further period of 3(three) months from to-day, as an outer limit provided no appeal is filed by the respondents and no stay is obtained of the order impugned therein. In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, then order dated 28.05.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 6480 of 2007 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 3(three) months from the date of this order. In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, then order dated 28.05.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 6480 of 2007 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 3(three) months from the date of this order. In case if order is not complied with even within the extended period fixed by the Court subject to what is discussed above, the respondents and all other authorities responsible for ensuring compliance shall be held guilty for committing contempt of this Court order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts’ Act would be passed against each of them. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents are requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original order dated 28.05.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 6480 of 2007 to the respondents, i.e. the official concerned to enable them to ensure compliance as directed. The respondents will also communicate the compliance report to the petitioner as soon as it is complied with within the period fixed by this Court. 8. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stands disposed of. No cost.