Shri Raj Kumar v. Shri Anish Dayal Singh & Ors.

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. CONT.CAS(C) 1600/2024

3. The petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [“CC Act”] against the respondents for alleged wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court as contained in the order dated 25.10.2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 7073/2010.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents is present on advance notice.

5. In a nutshell, the petitioner was recruited/selected as a Driver/ Constable in Central Reserve Police Force [“CRPF”] on 20.03.2007. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 20.02.2008 on finding some defects in the verification process of his driving license. The petitioner approached the Regional Transport Office, Agra, and as per the petitioner, it was confirmed that the driving license was a genuine one.

6. On the petitioner filing the aforesaid writ petition, direction was issued to the respondents to verify the driving license of the petitioner within six weeks with a further direction that if the contention of the petitioner was found to be correct, his matter is to be reconsidered and fresh orders be passed within next four weeks.

7. Unfortunately, there was a stoic silence on the part of the petitioner in seeking the enforcement of the aforesaid direction for about 13 years, from the year 2010 to 2023.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urges that after much persuasion, the Deputy Director General of Police, Group Centre-2, Ajmer sent communication dated 14.03.2023 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Range Headquarters, Ajmer, for taking necessary steps for the verification of the driving license of the petitioner. Again nothing happened from 17.03.2023 to 17.02.2024, and finally the petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents on 05.07.2024 and there was no response, now he has filed the present contempt petition.

9. Ex facie, the present contempt petition is barred by virtue of Section 20 of the CC Act. The breach, if any, that was committed by the respondents cannot be said to be continuous under Section 23 of the CC Act by any stretch of imagination. The act of the respondents was complete, when no fresh decision was made within the time stipulated by this Court. The act or omission to consider the petitioner’s case stood completed by the end of the year 2010.

10. In view of the above, the present contempt petition is dismissed.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. OCTOBER 07, 2024