Ranita Chauhan vs R.K. Sharma

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of

India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for having willfully and

intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in judgment dated 03.01.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.130 of 2018,

whereby Division Bench of this Court while reserving the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation, directed Secretary (Education) to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh to decide the same within a period of four weeks after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Since,

despite there being aforesaid directions issued by Division Bench of this Court, Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, failed

to pass order on the representation having been filed by the petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for initiation of

contempt proceedings against the respondent.

Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondent, states that vide a judgment alleged to have been violated, positive directions were

issued to Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to decide the representation, but in the case at hand, petitioner has not

arrayed the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as a party-respondent. On the oral request of learned counsel

representing the petitioner, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is impleaded as party-respondent.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, is directed to file amended memo of parties within a period of one week, enabling the Registry to make

necessary correction in the memo of parties.

Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondent, while referring to communication dated 27.02.2019, addressed to the Special

Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh by Executive Director (Pers.), H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla,

contends that pursuant to directions contained in judgment dated 03.01.2019, HPSEB has already sent comments to the Department concerned,

enabling it to pass appropriate orders on the representations having been filed by the petitioner. It appears that till date, Secretary (Education) to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh even after having received comments from the State HPSEB, has not passed final order on the representation

having been filed by the petitioner pursuant to judgment dated 03.01.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court.

Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the newly added respondent, states that though he has a reason to

presume and believe that by now, judgment alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same shall be positively complied

with, within two weeks.

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondent, this Court sees no reason to

keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed with direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been

violated, positively, within a period of two weeks, failing which, respondent would further aggravate the contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to

get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.