Full Text
CONT.CAS(C) 701/2013
RAJBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Vaishalee Mehra, Advocate.
CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Abhey N. Das, Advocate.
This petition is predicated on the non compliance of the
JUDGMENT
2. It is the case of the petitioner that no steps whatsoever have been taken till date towards the implementation of the said judgment. It is also alleged that the petitioner has also separately intimated the respondent with regard to the aforesaid judgment, on 8th July, 2013 and 15th July, 2013; besides having repeatedly reported for duty as envisaged in the aforesaid judgment.
3. Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings in contempt be not initiated against him.
4. Mr. Abhey N. Das, Advocate, enters appearance and accepts notice. He states that, as a matter of fact, the respondent has filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.2739/2004 delivered on 28th May, 2013, which is the subject matter of the instant contempt petition, by filing No.128666/2013. He submits that the appeal was initially filed on 26th August, 2013 and has been refiled thereafter on 6th September, 2013.
5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the filing of any such appeal should have no effect on the instant proceedings which are predicated on the non-compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge on 28th May, 2013, more so, since no ad interim stay of the aforesaid judgment has been obtained by the respondent. I do not agree. To my mind, since the respondent has moved an appeal in the matter, it would not be a fit case for initiation contempt proceedings. In this context, I might Cont.Cas(C) No.701/2013 refer to a decision of a Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No.2253/2000, decided by the Full Bench on 20th August, 2001 in Ram Avadh Singh v. Lalji Yadav & Ors., which reads as follows: “Leave granted. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case where proceedings for contempt should have been initiated, especially in view of the fact that against the judgment which was delivered against the appellant an appeal had been filed and neither the appeal nor even the stay application has been decided. In view of the pendency of the said stay application, the contempt proceedings are ordered to be withdrawn. If the stay application is dismissed, it would then be open to the respondents to take further action. The High Court should dispose of the stay application as expeditiously as possible and without granting any further adjournment. The appeal is disposed of....................J (B.N. KIRPAL)...................J (N. SANTOSH HEGDE)..................J (BRIJESH KUMAR)”
6. Consequently, in view of the submissions of the respondent, and in the light of the above observations of the Supreme Court, the instant petition is dismissed.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2013