Smt. Asha Sharma vs Indar Singh Solanki

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.—By way of the instant contempt petition, the Petitioner has sought the following relief:

It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to accept this contempt petition and may be pleased to suitably punish the contemner-Respondents for disobeying and flouting the orders/directions issued by this Hon''ble Court vide order dated 24.4.2008 (Annex.1) and direct the Respondent to make full, proper and effective compliance of the orders/directions of the Hon''ble Court.

The operative part of the order dated 24.4.2008, which has been sought to be complied with by the Petitioner in the instant contempt petition reads as under:

In view of above discussions, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to file a representation before the Respondents within a period of one month from today, and in case the same is filed, then the Respondents are directed to decide the same by awarding compensation keeping the Petitioner at par with the similarly situated person or to pass a reasoned order, after hearing the Petitioner within a period of three-months thereafter.

From perusal of the above mentioned operative part of the order dated 24.4.2008, it is clear that a liberty was granted to the Petitioner to file a representation before the Respondents within a period of one month from the date of order i.e. 24.4.2008 and the Respondents in-turn were directed to decide the same within a period of three months thereafter.

In pursuance of the order dated 24.4.2008, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Respondent on 2.7.2008 i.e. after two months from the date of passing the order dated 24.4.2008, despite the fact that there was a clear- cut direction by this Court to file a representation before the Respondents within a period of one month from the date of order i.e. 24.4.2008.

Albeit, the Petitioner is found to have sent the notice dated 25.9.2008 for compliance of the order dated 24.4.2008, but vide letter dated 23.1.2009, it was informed to her that the representation submitted by her was time-barred, as such the same could not be considered. Again the Respondent sent a letter dated 1.4.2009 to the Petitioner asking her to submit the copy of the representation sent by her within the prescribed time. Inspite of the letters dated 23.1.2009 and 1.4.2009, the Petitioner did not submit the copy of representation, which could be said to have been sent by her within the prescribed time. This goes to show that it is the Petitioner, who in-fact, committed the contempt of Court and not the Respondent. Even otherwise, the language of the representation as also notice is contemptuous.

Be that as it may, since no representation, sent by her within the prescribed time, was pending with the Respondent, there was no occasion with him to consider the same.

For the reasons stated above, no contempt is made out. The contempt petition being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.