AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 359 wordsP.B.Suresh Kumar, J
This is a proceedings instituted under the Contempt of Courts Act alleging willful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court in the judgment dated 20.12.2021 in W.A.No.1684 of 2021.
Even though it was reported in the course of the proceedings that the direction issued by this Court has been complied with, the matter was not closed since it was found prima facie that there was unreasonable delay in complying with the direction issued by this Court, and the respondent was directed to file an affidavit explaining the delay.
Pursuant to the said direction, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that he has assumed office of the competent authority only on 10.03.2022. It is stated that on 14.03.2022, when the file was put up before him, it was noticed that even though the opinion of the Advocate General was sought as to the scope of the appeal, the same was not received. He consequently directed the officials to expedite the process of the legal opinion. It is stated that he went on leave thereafter due to medical reasons for undergoing a surgery and immediately on resuming office after the leave, the proceedings for compliance of the order was issued, after obtaining legal advice from the office of the Advocate General.
In the meanwhile, at the instance of the petitioner, the predecessor of the respondent was also impleaded in the proceedings as an additional respondent and he too was directed to file an affidavit explaining the delay occasioned while he was in office. The said officer has filed an affidavit stating that immediately on coming to know of the direction, he wrote a letter on 04.01.2022 itself to the office of the Advocate General for an opinion as to the scope of the appeal, and he retired from service before receiving the opinion.
Having regard to the contents of the affidavits referred to above, we are of the view that this is not a case where further action under the Contempt of Courts Act is to be pursued against the respondents.
The contempt case, in the circumstances, is closed.