Sudha Rani Verma vs Neeta Chaudhri and others

Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner an interim order dated 16.9.2008 passed in writ petition No. 1299 (SB) of 2008 Dr.(Mrs.) Sudha Rani Verma Vs State of U.P. and others wherein the transfer order dated 29.6.2008 in so far as it related to the petitioner had been stayed and the petitioner was to be permitted to discharge the duties on the post of Chief Medical Superintendent at Mirzapur. According to learned counsel for the petitioner when the interim order dated 16.9.2008 was not being complied with by the authorities he approached the Writ Court again wherein the Writ Court provided that in case the interim order dated 16.9.2008 is not complied within 48 hours the Principal Secretary, of the department shall appear in person before the court to show cause as to why appropriate proceedings be not initiated against him for non compliance of the interim order passed by the Writ Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner upon passing of the second order on 15.10.2008 the interim order dated 16.9.2008 was complied with by the respondents within 48 hours. His submission is that the non compliance of the interim order dated 16.9.2008 prior 15.10.2008 was a contempt committed by the opposite parties and therefore they are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record it appears that the interim order dated 16.9.2008 was not complied with by the respondents and hence by the subsequent order dated 15.10.2008 the respondent was required to comply with the interim order within 48 hours failing which the court held that appropriate proceedings for non compliance of the interim order could be taken up against the respondent. From the aforesaid directions dated 15.10.2008 of the Writ Court it is quite apparent that the Writ Court had directed that the interim order dated 16.9.2008 was to be complied with within 48. Admittedly the interim order was complied with within 48 hours of 15.10.2008 consequently the occasion for the Writ Court to initiate proceedings for non compliance of the interim order dated 16.9.2008 did not arise and when the Writ Court itself provided for 48 hours from 15.10.2008 to comply it cannot be said that the interim order dated 16.9.2008 having not been complied with the respondent can be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. The argument raised by the petitioner is misconceived and cannot be accepted.

This contempt petition has no merit. It is accordingly rejected.

No order is passed as to costs.