Ramswaroop vs Rahul Bhatnagar & Ors.

S. P. Mehrotra, J.—The present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, inter alia, prayed in the contempt petition that the opposite parties be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by noncompliance of the order dated 12111991 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24117 of 1991, Ramswarup v. State of U.P. through Collector, Shahjahanpur and others.

By the order dated 1721993, notice was directed to be issued to the opposite party No. 1 (Rahul Bhatnagar) to showcause as to why action be not taken against him for disobedience of the said order dated 12111991 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24117 of 1991.

In response to the notice issued on the contempt petition, the said Rahul Bhatnagar (opposite party No. 1) filed his counteraffidavit sworn on 1571993.

A perusal of paragraph 4 of the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition shows that by the order dated 12111991 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24117 of 1991, the said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Collector, Shahjahanpur to decide the representation of the petitioner/applicant within the period mentioned in the said order dated 12111991.

It is, inter alia, alleged in the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition that the petitioner/applicant filed his representation dated 1611992 alongwith certified copy of the said order dated 12111991, but the directions given in the order dated 12111991 were not complied with.

In paragraph 4 of the counteraffidavit filed by the said Rahul Bhatnagar (opposite party No. 1), it is, inter alia, stated that in compliance with the said order dated 12111991 passed in the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24117 of 1991, the representation of the petitioner/applicant had already been disposed of by the said Rahul Bhatnagar (opposite party No. 1) on 581992 after having the detailed enquiry and perusal of the materials, reports and evidence submitted by various authorities; and that the copy of the order dated 581992 passed by the said Rahul Bhatnagar (opposite party No. 1) alongwith the notice of the information through Tehsildar dated 1081992 had already been made to the petitioner/applicant. Copy of the said order dated 581992 has been filed as AnnexureCA9 to the said counteraffidavit, as is evident from the averments made in paragraph 6 of the said counteraffidavit.

Reasons for the delay in complying with the directions given in the said order dated 12111991 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24117 of 1991 have also been stated in the said counteraffidavit.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the directions given in the said order dated 12111991 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24117 of 1991 have already been complied with by the opposite party No. 1 (Rahul Bhatnagar). The delay in complying with the directions given in the said order dated 12111991 has been duly explained, and it is evident that the delay is neither wilful nor deliberate.

In view of the aforesaid, the showcause notice issued to the said Rahul Bhatnagar (opposite party No. 1) is liable to be discharged, and the same is accordingly discharged. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Notice discharged.