Petitioner sought to initiate contempt proceedings for respondent's alleged disobedience of an Administrative Tribunal order. Court found no need to keep proceedings alive and directed respondent to comply within two weeks.
Proceedings closed; direction to respondent to comply within two weeks; notice discharged.
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. 918 of 2020 Decided on: October 1, 2020
| ________________________ Rangila Ram |
__________________ Versus |
_____________________ ………..Petitioner |
|---|---|---|
| Raj Kumar Verma | ….Respondent | |
| ________________________ Coram: |
__________________ | _____________________ |
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
| For the Petitioner | : Mr. Sur through |
inder Sak video-con |
lani, feren |
Advocate, cing. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
For the Respondents |
: Mr. As General |
hok Sha with |
rma, Mr. |
Advocate Sudhir |
| Bhatnag | ar and |
Mr | . Arvind |
|
| Sharma, General |
Additio with Mr. |
nal Kun |
Advocates al Thakur, |
|
| Deputy through |
Advoc video-con |
ate feren |
General, cing. |
|
| _________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge |
_____________ (oral): |
__________ | _____ | __________ |
By way of present petition filed under S.17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, read with Ss. 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 8.3.2019 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2292 of 2017, titled Rangila Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby learned Tribunal below had issued an interim direction to the respondent to take a final decision on the basis of representation (Annexure A-6) of the applicant/petitioner by 30.4.2019. Since no action, whatsoever,
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
came to be taken by the respondent in pursuance to order (supra), petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to take appropriate action against the respondent, in accordance with law.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that though he has every reason to believe that by now order in question 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 respondent to do the needful, if not already done, in terms of judgment in question, within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to say, petitioner shall be at liberty to get the contempt petition revived, in case, respondent fails to comply with the order in question, so that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge
October 1, 2020 (vikrant)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for non-compliance with the interim order dated 8.3.2019 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rangila Ram
Raj Kumar Verma
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
