Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 704 (PAT)

Pawan Kumar Mandal v. State of Bihar

2014-06-25

JAYANANDAN SINGH

body2014
Order On 09.04.2014, this Court had found that there was gross delay on the part of the Civil Surgeon, Darbhanga in complying with the orders of this Court and, therefore, he was directed to file a show cause as to why cost may not be imposed upon him for delayed compliance thereof causing undue harassment and expenses to the petitioner in pursuing this contempt application. He has filed his show cause. 2. Chronology of the facts shows that the writ application of petitioner was disposed of on 05.08.2011 by this Court. He filed his representation in the office of the Civil Surgeon along with a copy of the order. Show cause filed by him shows that on 02.10.2011 he wrote a letter to the Director-in-Chief, Health Services vide Annexure-C for instructions in the light of the orders passed by this Court. Thereafter he did not take further steps in the matter and obtained a certified copy of the order from the Court on 29.06.2012. Obviously, this step was taken by him after almost eight months. Even after obtaining certified copy of the order, he did not do anything for almost two months and wrote another letter to the Director-in-Chief, Health Services on 24.08.2012 only, vide Annexure-D for instructions and directions for filing Letters Patent Appeal,. Thereafter it is stated that ‘office’ of the Civil Surgeon contacted the Additional Advocate General No.2 for filing Letters Patent Appeal and subsequently he sent statements of fact and original file to the Director-in-Chief on 30.08.2012. Thereafter there is no explanation as to why orders were not passed in compliance to the orders of this Court for about one and half years. 3. It is admitted position that no appeal has been filed against the order of this Court. The contempt application was filed on 18.07.2012 and after grant of four weeks’ time on 13.12.2012 for filing show cause; the matter was again taken up on 08.01.2014. On that date learned counsel for the opposite parties prayed for one more accommodation as a last indulgence. The matter was placed on the next appointed day. On the next day i.e. on 29.01.2014, it was informed that the show cause was in the process of being affidavited. 4. On that date learned counsel for the opposite parties prayed for one more accommodation as a last indulgence. The matter was placed on the next appointed day. On the next day i.e. on 29.01.2014, it was informed that the show cause was in the process of being affidavited. 4. It appears that in the meanwhile, the Director-in-Chief passed an order on 28.01.2014 i.e. one day before the matter was taken up, vide Annexure-A, rejecting the claim of petitioner on the basis of the materials on record but without allowing him to be heard in the matter. This step was taken by the Director-in-Chief obviously in a hurry to show compliance of the orders of this Court. On 26.04.2014, this Court found that notice issued to the petitioner by him was received later to the date fixed. Hence, he could not appear. Accordingly, he was directed to appear before the Civil Surgeon on 06.03.2014, who was directed to hear petitioner and examine all the materials produced by him and give a finding in respect of the claim of the petitioner. This was ultimately done by the Civil Surgeon by his order dated 20.03.2014, as contained in Annexure-B to the supplementary show cause. By this order, he rejected the claim of petitioner by a speaking order. 5. Hence, so far as merit of the case of the petitioner is concerned, he has to challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. But chronology of the events shows that only when this Court refused to give further indulgence to the opposite parties, taking up the matter of petitioner in January, 2014 i.e. almost two and half years of the order, he passed an order. The explanation of delay in the show cause of the Civil Surgeon is not satisfactory. Even if his action mentioned in paragraph 5 of the show cause is accepted, there is nothing on record to show nor there is any explanation as to what was the cause of delay in compliance of the orders of this Court after issue of letter dated 30.08.2012 and till 28.01.2014. 6. Hence, this Court finds it a fit case in which cost should be imposed on the opposite party responsible for delayed compliance of the orders of this Court and for causing unnecessary harassment and pecuniary loss to the petitioner in pursuing the matter for so long. 6. Hence, this Court finds it a fit case in which cost should be imposed on the opposite party responsible for delayed compliance of the orders of this Court and for causing unnecessary harassment and pecuniary loss to the petitioner in pursuing the matter for so long. Cost is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) which shall be paid by the Civil Surgeon to petitioner from his own salary within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. This contempt application is disposed of.