Full Text
Date ofJudgment: 13.09.2011 CONT. CAS (C)No.698/2011
RAM KISHORE & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr.
Advocate, with Ms.Madhusmita Bora, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
0 S.D.MAZUMDAR Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR. T. fOraP
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent; it is pointed out that the directions contained in the judgment dated 10.9.2010 having been complied with. The relevant extract of the said judgment has been highlighted and reads as under: Cont. Cas.
(C) No.698/2011 2011:DHC:9639 i
2. Contention is that thereafter the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India while deahng with the representation of the candidates for relocation of zones had noted as under: "2.The Board has examined the matter and it has been decided that the Zone allocation is made on merit cum preference basis, and any re-allocation of Zones as per the request of the candidates is not permissible as per the extant guidelines."
3. Vehement contention is that this is a clear contempt of the directions contained in the order dated 10.9.2010. 4.. This Court is not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Contempt is made out if there is a prima facie case of willful disobedience and willful disregard Cont. Cas.
(C) No.698/2011 Page2of[3] of the order of the Court. The order dated 10.9.2010 had in fact noted the powers of the department; it had noted that there is no reason as to why department should denude its own power in considering the request of the candidates. The power referred to in this order is the power of the department to accept a request or to reject the request of a particular candidate. In this scenario the order (page 135 of the paper book) of the Deputy Secretary noting that the request of the candidates is not permissible as per the guidelines does in any manner make out a case of contempt; there could not be a disobedience or a disregard of the powers of the power itself; the order dated 10.9.2010 had noted the power of the department to consider the request of the candidates; the order of the Deputy Secretary has noted that this is not permissible. That apart this order (page 135 of the paper book) is neither dated or not a true copy of the original; it is not clear as to when this order was passed whether it was after the order dated 10.9.2010 or before. No case of contempt is made out. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J. SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 nandan