Peetam and Anr. vs Satish Chandra Tripathi

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, inter alia, prayed that the opposite party be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by flouting the order dated 1321991 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17959 of 1990, Peetam and others v. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board Auriya, District Etawah and another.

By the Order dated 931995, notice was directed to be issued to the opposite party to showcause as to why he be not punished for having committed contempt of this Court by flouting the order dated 1321991 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17959 of 1990.

The said Order dated 931995 is reproduced below:

�Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the Contempt Petition, affidavit and its annexures.

Since I find a prima facie case for the alleged contempt of Court, hence it is ordered.

Issue notice to Sri Satish Chandra Tripathi, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Auraiya, District Etawah, directing him to appear in person on 381995 or through the learned Counsel stating on oath all the facts as to why he shall not be prosecuted for the alleged contempt of Court for flouting of the Hon''ble Court''s order dated 1321991 passed in W.P. No. 17959 of 1990.

Respondent is directed to make all endeavour to see that the Hon''ble Court''s order has been complied with �.

It appears that pursuant to the said Order dated 931995, notice was issued to the opposite party.

Office submitted its Report dated 181995 regarding service of the said notice issued to the opposite party on the contempt petition. The said Office Report dated 181995 is quoted below:

�In view of Court''s order doled 931995. Notice issued to sole Opposite Party fixing 381995vide Court''s letter No. 5854 dated 2661995 has not yet been received back after service.

The case is put up for order�.

In view of the said Office Report dated 181995, the Court by its Order dated 481995, inter alia, directed for issuance of reminder fixing 1891995. The said Order dated 481995 is reproduced below:

�Issue reminder fixing 18th September, 1995.�

It appears that in view of the said Order dated 481995, Reminder was issued fixing 1891995.

Office submitted its Report dated 1491995 in regard to the said Reminder issued pursuant to the said Order dated 481995. The said Office Report dated 1491995 is quoted below:

�In view of Court''s order dated 481995. Reminder issued to C.J.M. Etawah fixing 1891995 vide Courts letter No. 8947 dated 591995 has not yet been received back served notice.

The case is put up for order�.

It appears that the case was put up before the Court on 189 1995 with the said office Report dated 1491995. However, on the said date, i.e., 1891995, the case was passed over on account of illnessslip of Sri Yashpal Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitionerapplicant.

The case was thereafter, put up before the Court on 2552004 with the Office Report dated 2452004. It may be mentioned that during the intervening period from 1891995 to 2452004, no order appears to have been passed on the question of service of notice on the opposite party on the contempt petition.

It is, thus, not possible to verify as to whether notice issued by the Office pursuant to the said Order dated 931995 was actually tendered on the opposite party.

No prayer appears to have been made on behalf of the petitionerapplicant for taking fresh steps for issuance of notice to the opposite party.

When the case was listed on 2552004, it was reported to the Court that Sri Yashpal Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitionerapplicant had expired.

In the circumstances, the Court passed the following Order on 2552004:

�Sri Yashpal Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioners applicants is reported to have expired. Office is directed to issue notice to the petitioners applicants to engage another Counsel. Notices will be issued fixing a date in the week commencing 2092004 �.

It appears that pursuant to the said Order dated 2552004, notice was issued to the petitionersapplicants to engage another Counsel.

Office submitted its Report dated 1892004 in regard to the service of notice issued to the petitionersapplicants pursuant to the said Order dated 2552004. The said Office Report dated 1892004 is quoted below:

�Pursuant Hon''ble Court''s order dated 2252004 Notice issued to petitioners engage another Counsel fixing 2092004. Petitioner No. 1 Peetam S/o. Saiku ki mrityu ho gayi hai. Petitioner No. 2 ka service report has been served. The case is put up for orders''.�

It is evident from the abovequoted Office Report dated 189 2004 that the petitionerapplicant No. 1 has expired.

As regards the petitionerapplicant No. 2, it is evident that the notice has been served on him.

In view of the said Office Report dated 1892004, the Court passed the Order dated 2092004. The said Order dated 2092004 is quoted below:

�Perused the office report dated 18th Sept., 2004.

Office is directed to submit report as to whether any learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the petitionerapplicant No. 2 pursuant to the service of notice stated to have been issued to the petitionerapplicant No. 2, as directed by the order dated 25th May, 2004.

List in the week commencing 16th Nov., 2004".

Pursuant to the said Order dated 2092004, the Office has submitted the following Report dated 10112004.

�Reference Hon''ble Court''s order dated 2092004 it is submitted that nobody has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner applicant No. 2 as per record.

With above submission, the case is put up for order�.

From the above discussion, it is evident that while the petitioner applicant No. 1 has expired, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the petitionerapplicant No. 2 despite service of notice pursuant to the said Order dated 2552004.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated above, the Court has no option but to dismiss the contempt petition for want of prosecution.

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.

Showcause notice issued to the opposite party is discharged.