Maya Rani vs Daljit Kaur Chadha

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This court on 22.4.1998 in Civil Writ Petition No. 7277 of 1998 had passed the following order :

"Without going into the merits of this case at this stage, we consider it appropriate to direct respondent No. 2 i.e. Director, Public Instructions (Primary), Punjab, to consider and take action in accordance with law on the legal notices served on behalf of the petitioners dated February 15, 1998, copy Annexure P2, within a period of six months of the receipt of copy of this order from this court or a certified copy thereof from the petitioners, whichever is earlier. In case the petitioners or their counsel file any supplementary representation or issue any supplementary notices within a fortnight from today, the same shall also be taken into consideration. It would be appreciated if a reasoned order is passed. In case the petitioners are found entitled to the relief claimed in the notice, then the arrears so calculated would be confined to three years and two months prior to the receipt of the notice (Annexure P2)."

The petitioners complained that the order has not been complied with and filed COCP No. 1724 of 1998. It come up for hearing before this Court on 24.12.1998. This Court directed that decision in this regard be taken within 8 weeks and communicated to the petitioners. In default the respondent shall be personally liable to pay the costs to the petitioners. The said order reads :

"However, without going into the merits of this controversy, it is expected that the respondent shall comply with the directions contained in the order dated 9th May, 1998 within 8 weeks from today and communicate the order to the petitioners.

In the event of default, the respondent shall be personally liable to pay the costs to the petitioner. If he is compelled to approach this Court again, in addition to the fact that the said respondent would be liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for disobeying the order of the Court."

Reply has been filed. It is now being indicated that necessary order has since been passed and copy of the same has been appended as Annexure R1.

However, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that despite the earlier directions, within 8 weeks of the said order, no decision had been taken. It is mandatory that directions of the court should be scrupulously observed and obeyed. The respondent could not have taken it lightly. Some delay is inherent while examining the matters but not inordinate delay. Herein despite the first direction, followed by the second direction (last being of 24.12.1998), the respondent has chosen to pass the order on 21.7.1999. The petitioners, therefore, had to approach this Court. Indeed they are entitled to the costs. It is assessed at Rs. 2,000/ to be paid by the respondent.

Subject to aforesaid, the rule is discharged.