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
6 paragraphs · 288 wordsL. Narasimha Reddy, J
Both these Contempt Petitions (CP Nos.648/2017 & 18/2018) are filed alleging that the respondents did not implement the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by this Tribunal in OA Nos.749/2015, 3540/2015 & 613/2015. The contempt cases have undergone several adjournments. Today, it is fairly represented by learned counsel for the applicants that the respondents filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court against the order in the aforementioned OAs, and that it is in the process of considering the delay in filing the writ petition. It is also stated that the Hon'ble High Court orally observed that the applicants shall not press the contempt petitions.
We heard Shri Himanshu Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Duli Chand, learned counsel for the respondents.
Both the petitions are very old contempt cases on the files of this Tribunal. As of now, uncertainty prevails as to the finality to be attached to the order in the O.A., in one form or the other. The writ petition is pending and the Hon'ble High Court is also said to have observed that the contempt petition, need not to be proceeded with.
We are of the view that in the present state of affairs, it is not advisable to keep the contempt petitions pending. We, therefore, close the contempt petitions, leaving it open to the applicants to pursue further remedies depending upon the outcome of the pending writ petition. We also make it clear that in case the writ petition is dismissed without any modification or observations it shall be open to the applicants to file an application to revive the present contempt petitions.
The contempt petitions are accordingly closed with the aforesaid directions