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
4 paragraphs · 194 wordsR.K. Merathia, J.—It is submitted by Mr. Nanda, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that though the concerned RespondentDirector, Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi, has taken a fresh decision in terms of the order in question but such decision is wrong and moreover the time was given for taking such decision within three months but it was taken after more than one and half years.
On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned Counsel for the State referring to the show cause submitted that a thorough enquiry was made, which took some time and the Petitioner was also given opportunity of hearing on 22/05/2010 and, therefore there was delay in complying the order in question, which may be condoned.
Thus, it appears that the order has been complied by taking a fresh decision though much beyond the time limit, which has been sought to be justified.
In the circumstances, this contempt case is dropped with liberty to the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as may be available to him under the law, against the order dated 11/06/2011, passed by the Director, Primary Education, Ranchi, Jharkhand, contained in AnnexureA to the Show Cause.