High CourtsSingle Bench

Jagat Singh vs Sandeep Bhatnagar And Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 23 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 SHI CK 0042

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — Section 17
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPC (T) No. 788 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

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

16 paragraphs · 336 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of present petition filed under S. 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to initiate

contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 27.7.2017 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 3534 of 2018, titled Jagat Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, whereby learned Tribunal

below having taken note of the statement made by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by

judgment dated 17.7.2014, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3050/2014, Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, disposed of the

Original Application with a direction to the respondents to extend benefit of aforesaid judgment to the petitioner, if on verification he is found to be

similarly situate person, within two months. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken by the respondents in pursuance to order passed by

erstwhile Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to take appropriate action against the respondents, in

accordance with law.

2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent fairly states that though she has every reason to believe that by now order in question must have

been complied with by the respondent, but if not, same would be complied within a period of two weeks from today.

3.

Having taken note of the fair stand adopted by learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, this Court sees no reason to keep the present

proceedings alive and same are closed with a direction to the respondent to do the needful, if not already done, in terms of order in question, within a

period of two weeks from today. Needless to say, petitioner shall be at liberty to get the contempt petition revived, in case, respondents fail to comply

with the order in question, so that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.