Petitioner sought action for contempt alleging non-compliance with an order in a writ petition. Court found evidence of compliance, held conduct not contumacious, and dismissed petition.
Present petition stands dismissed; liberty to approach concerned authorities reserved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
COPC No. 521 of 2016 Decided on: 08.05.2017
_______________________________________________________ Lalit Narain Mishra ..Petitioner.
Versus
Yash Paul Sharma & another.
..Respondents.
________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: In person. For the respondent: Mr. Amit Himalvi, Proxy Counsel.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. (oral)
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
“Please take proper and suitable action against the respondents for committing contempt of court by not complying the order and judgment of this Hon’ble Court passed vide order dated 15 Nov 2015 in CMP No. 9077/2016 in Writ Petition No. 1449 of 2015 directing the respondent to take the answer-books sealed envelope deposited in the court and provide a copy of the to the petitioner
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
whenever he applies for that.”
2. Order dated 15th November, 2016, in toto, is reproduced
as under:
“Petitioner/applicant has moved this application
in a decided CWP No. 1449 of 2015. It is moot question-whether this application is maintainable? We leave this question open. It is for the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities for obtaining the copy of the requisite documents. Registry is directed to hand over the sealed covered documents filed on 27.5.2015 to Ms. Anjana Parmar, learned Senior Advocate. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.”
to continue with the present petition and the conduct of the respondent cannot be said to be contumacious. Accordingly, we
3
dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to
resort to such remedies as are available in law, to which he may be
so advised. As such, present petition stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge
8th May, 2017
(virender)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to contempt for not complying with a previous judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CMP No. 9077/2016Referred¶11
CMP No. 9077/2016 in Writ Petition No. 1449 of 2015
Lalit Narain Mishra
Yash Paul Sharma
Sanjay Karol
Chander Bhusan Barowalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
