Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 56 (GAU)

PULAK DEVROY v. A B MOHAMMED EUNUS

2014-01-20

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, 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) 5077 of 2002 decided by the learned Single Judge on 20.11.2008. 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 20.11.2008 rendered in the connected WP(C) No. 5077 of 2002 reads as follows: “ Notwithstanding the earlier orders passed by the Court requiring certain information to be laid before it by the respondent State, which directions have remained uncomplied with till date, the Court is of the view that the writ petition needs resolution strictly within the four corners of the relief sought, which is interference with the order of the Director dated 20.8.97 and further not to terminate the services of the petitioners. In this regard, the Court has noticed that in some other writ petitions i.e. Civil Rule Nos. 4532/97 and 4315/97 this Court in a similar situation, by order dated 25.4.2000, has already interfered with the order dated 20.8.97 of the Director, as impugned in the present case. Having gone through the aforesaid order dated 25.4.2000, passed in Civil Rule Nos 4532/97 and 4315/97, the Court is of the view that the facts of the present case being identical, there is no reason as to why interference made by the aforesaid order dated 25.4.2000 should not be reiterated in the present case. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20.8.8.97 passed by the Director is set aside. It is made clear that the present order of the Court allowing the writ petition and interfering with the order dated 20.8.97 of the Director shall not be construed to be any expression of opinion either on the legality of the petitioners’ appointments; their continuance in service or their entitlement for arrear and current salary as well as their entitlement for regularization. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.” 5. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.” 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 20.11.2008 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 20.11.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 5077 of 2002 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 20.11.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 5077 of 2002 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.