Smt. Krishna Sharma v. Shri Keshav Chandra

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner had sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the Secretary of the NDMC on account of recovery of penal rent and licence fee from the petitioner despite the inter order dated 24th May, 2006 passed by this Court restraining NDMC to do that. A reply has been filed on behalf of respondent’s/ Secretary, NDMC contending inter alia that the breach is on account of an inadvertent error and on account of communication gap. The respondent has tendered unconditional and unfettered apology for the same to the court and it is also contended that the penal amount which 2009:DHC:3320 Cont Case (C) No.1530/2006 had been recovered from the petitioner has been remitted back to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the amount for penal rent and licence fee which was recovered from the petitioner has been remitted back to the petitioner. In view of the remittance of the penal rent and licence fee and unconditional apology tendered by the respondent, no further action is required. The notice of contempt issued to the respondent is discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of. August 18, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘Dev’