The court heard a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order. The Additional Advocate General undertook compliance within two weeks. The court closed the proceedings with a direction to comply.
Proceedings closed; respondents directed to comply within two weeks.
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, SHIMLA.
COPC(T) No. 374 of 2020 Decided on: July 1, 2020
| __________________________________________ Manoj Kumar |
_____________________ ………..Petitioner |
|---|---|
| Versus | |
| Anil Kumar Khachi and another | ….Respondents |
| __________________________________________ Coram: |
_____________________ |
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
| For the Petitioner | : Mr. Kulbhushan Advocate, video-conferencing. |
Khajuria, through |
|---|---|---|
For the Respondent |
: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate General with |
Additional Mr. Kunal |
| Thakur, Deputy General, through conferencing. |
Advocate video- |
|
| _________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge |
____________________________ (oral): |
__________ |
By way of present petition filed under S. 12 read with Section 2(B) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 14.9.2017 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 36 of 2015, titled Manoj Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others , whereby learned Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by judgment
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
dated 14.9.2010 rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 6785 of 2008, Narender Singh Naik vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and other and judgment dated 9.4.2013 rendered by this Court in LPA No. 271 of 2011, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Narender Singh Naik, disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents/competent Authority to extend benefit of aforesaid judgments to the petitioner, if on verification he is found to be similarly situate person, within two months. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken by the respondents in pursuance to order passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to take appropriate action against the respondents, in accordance with law.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that though he has every reason to believe that by now judgment/order dated 14.9.2017 must have been complied with by the respondent, but if not, same would be complied within a period of two weeks from today.
3. Having taken note of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and same are closed with a direction to the respondents to do the needful, if not already done, in terms of order in question, within a period of two weeks
3
from today. Needless to say, petitioner shall be at liberty to get the contempt petition revived, in case, respondents fail to comply with the order in question, so that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge
July 1, 2020 (vikrant)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to initiate contempt proceedings against respondents for alleged disobedience of a Tribunal order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj Kumar
Anil Kumar Khachi
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
