Md. Sarfaraz Ahmad. vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—The Petitioner appears in person.

In this interlocutory application, the Petitioner has prayed for reinitiating the contempt proceeding against Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3.

From the record, it is evident that earlier the contempt proceeding in Cont. (Civil) Case No. 397 of 2009 was dropped by order dated 24th November, 2010 on the statement that the order could not be complied with earlier, as the same was challenged before the Supreme Court in special leave petition, which was pending. It has been stated that the State had filed special leave petition, being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 16747 of 2010, which was dismissed by order dated 15th November, 2010. The Petitioner submitted that due to the said misrepresentation that the matter is pending, the contempt proceeding was dropped by order dated 24th November, 2010. He further submitted that since no notice was issued to him by the Supreme Court, he was not aware about the filing of the SLP and dismissal of the same by order dated 15th November, 2010 and as such, at the time of hearing of the contempt case, he could bring the said fact to the notice of this Court. The Petitioner on the said ground has prayed for initiation of afresh contempt proceeding. Though the said prayer has been made, the Petitioner, who is not an expert in law, intends to pray for recalling the order dated 24th November, 2010 passed by this Court in Cont. (Civil) Case No. 397 of 2009.

Learned J.C. to A.G., on the other hand, submitted that the said contempt proceeding was dropped on merit, as the order dated 15th April, 2009 passed by this Court has been 2complied with. He further stated that the order dated 15th November, 2010 was not communicated to the counsel and he had no knowledge about the dismissal of the said SLP In absence of such communication, submission was made that the SLP Is pending before the Supreme Court and the decision is awaited. There was no misrepresentation on the part of the opposite parties in making the said submission.

Having heard learned Counsel, I find that though by order dated 24th November, 2010, the contempt case was disposed of, the Petitioner has made out a ground for recalling the said order.

In this interlocutory application, it has been specifically stated that the order of this Court has not been complied with in its true letters and spirit by issuing order, contained in Memo No. 837 dated 6th October, 2010. The Commandant has rather asked the Petitioner to submit a bond for his enrollment afresh, which is contrary to the order of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 1964 of 2003. By the said order, this Court had observed that there was no legal justification for the Respondent to deny the joining of the Petitioner after the order of acquittal dated 5th September, 2002. This Court, in that view, had directed the concerned Respondent to accept the joining of the Petitioner, if there is no other legally passed order of dismissal or termination from his service. It was also made clear that the Petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits from the date of his acquittal i.e. from 5th September, 2002.

After going through the letter issued by the Commandant to the Petitioner, which is brought on record as Annexure2, it is apparent that the said letter issued by Memo No. 1027 dated 4th December, 2010 is contrary to the said order and issuance of the same, prima facie, amounts defiance of the order of this Court.

Considering the above, this interlocutory application is allowed. The order dated 24th November, 2010 is recalled.

I.A. No. 59 of 2011 stands disposed of.

Cont. (Civil) Case No. 397 of 2009:

In view of the order dated 27th April, 2011 passed in I.A. No. 59 of 2011, the District Commandant, Home Guard, Dhanbad, namely, Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh is directed to appear in person before this Court on 10th June, 2011 to explain as to why punishment for committing contempt of Court be not imposed against him.