Full Text
Translation output
1,13,15,16 & 17 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 160/2015
DEEPAK KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. Padma Kumar S. Advocate.
CONT.CAS(C) 160/2015
DEEPAK KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. Padma Kumar S. Advocate.
VERSUS
B D SHARMA Respondent
Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, Advocate and Ms. Sidhi Arora, Advocate with
Mr. Jaswant Singh, SAO (Legal).
Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, Advocate and Ms. Sidhi Arora, Advocate with
Mr. Jaswant Singh, SAO (Legal).
WITH
CONT.CAS(C) 162/2015
MOfflT RATm Petitioner
Through: Mr. Padma Kumar S. Advocate.
MOfflT RATm Petitioner
Through: Mr. Padma Kumar S. Advocate.
VERSUS
B D SHARMA IPS Respondent Thi-ough: Mi". ArunBhardwaj, Advocate with
WITH
CONT.CAS(C) 418/2015
MOI-IAN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Padnia Kumar S. Advocate.
MOI-IAN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Padnia Kumar S. Advocate.
VERSUS
2015:DHC:10885 B D StlARMA . Respondent
Through: Mi". Anurag Ahluwaha, Advocate with
Through: Mi". Anurag Ahluwaha, Advocate with
WITH
CONT.CAS(C) 420/2015
RAJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mi*. PadmaKumar S. Advocate.
RAJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mi*. PadmaKumar S. Advocate.
VERSUS
B D SI-IARMA Respondent
Through: Mi". Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate with And
Through: Mi". Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate with And
CONT.CAS(C) 426/2015
SONU KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mi\ Padma Kumar S. Advocate.
SONU KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mi\ Padma Kumar S. Advocate.
VERSUS
B D SHAI^MA • Respondent
Through: Mr. Bhagvan Sarup Shukla, Advocate withMr. Soyash Kumar, Advocate and
Through: Mr. Bhagvan Sarup Shukla, Advocate withMr. Soyash Kumar, Advocate and
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
ORDER o/o 13.08.2015 Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilfol disobedience of the order dated 28^"" November, 2014 whereby the order dated 17^'' May, 2013 by virtue of which petitioners had been discharged from Sashastra Seema Bal (for short 'SSB') onthe ground that thatthey had failed to conduct themselves as efficient members ofthe force was set aside.
Learned counsel for petitioners states that despite representations, petitioners have not been reinstated inservice.
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent states that respondents have filed aSpecial Leave petition on 10^^ August, 2015.
Since more than nine months have lapsed after the pronouncement of the Division Bench
ORDER o/o 13.08.2015 Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilfol disobedience of the order dated 28^"" November, 2014 whereby the order dated 17^'' May, 2013 by virtue of which petitioners had been discharged from Sashastra Seema Bal (for short 'SSB') onthe ground that thatthey had failed to conduct themselves as efficient members ofthe force was set aside.
Learned counsel for petitioners states that despite representations, petitioners have not been reinstated inservice.
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent states that respondents have filed aSpecial Leave petition on 10^^ August, 2015.
Since more than nine months have lapsed after the pronouncement of the Division Bench
JUDGMENT
, this Court is ofthe view that the respondents have had sufficienttime to approachthe Supreme Court.
In the interest of justice, it is directed that the judgment and order dated 28^' November, 2014 shall be implemented within a period of eight weeks.
However, it is clarified that the present order is subject to any order to bepassed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave petition already filed by the respondents.
With the aforesaid direction, present contempt petitions are disposed of In the event, the order is not complied with, the petitioner are given
. liberty to seek revival ofthe present petitions.
Order dasti under the signature of Court Master.
Hi MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 13, 2015 js
In the interest of justice, it is directed that the judgment and order dated 28^' November, 2014 shall be implemented within a period of eight weeks.
However, it is clarified that the present order is subject to any order to bepassed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave petition already filed by the respondents.
With the aforesaid direction, present contempt petitions are disposed of In the event, the order is not complied with, the petitioner are given
. liberty to seek revival ofthe present petitions.
Order dasti under the signature of Court Master.
Hi MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 13, 2015 js