Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 676 (GAU)

MD. ANWAR HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY v. JITESH KHOSHLA

2014-06-27

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. J. C. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent. 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) No.936 of 2013 decided by the learned Single Judge on 28.02.2013. 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 28.02.2013 rendered in the connected WP(C) No.936 of 2013 reads as follows: “Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement of applicants seeking appointment on compassionate ground prepared by the office of respondent No. 5 to show that the date of application of the petitioner was recorded as 14.9.2004, which was the date of the application submitted to the State Home Minister. From a perusal of the application for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, it is seen that the date of application is 29.9.2004. Whether the date of the application is taken as 14.9.2004 or 29.9.2004, it will make no difference to the factual position of the petitioner as he had submitted the application within the prescribed period. Learned Standing Counsel also does not dispute the above factual position. Considering the above, it appears that the decision of the SLC rejecting the case of the petitioner is based on erroneous factual foundation. In view of above, the said decision of the SLC dated 19.5.2012 in respect of the petitioner is set aside and quashed. SLC is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on merit by treating his application to have been filed within time. Writ petition is disposed of.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt complains that despite petitioner serving a legal notice on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner. 6. SLC is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on merit by treating his application to have been filed within time. Writ petition is disposed of.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt 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 28.02.2013 for its implementation by a further period of 2(two) months from today, 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 28.02.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 936 of 2013 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 2(two) 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 28.02.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 936 of 2013 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.