Dismissed

Mohammad Ramzan Malla v. Mr. K. Rajindera and Others

J&K HC2 Dec 2021CPSW/84/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a petition for contempt filed for alleged violation of a 2015 writ order mandating timely enquiry conclusion, the High Court accepted the respondents' statement of facts that the enquiry was completed in March 2015. Finding that the order was thus complied with, the court held that no case was made out for contempt and dropped the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped; contempt petition disposed of.

Mohammad Ramzan Malla Vs Mr. K. Rajindera and Others — Contempt of Court | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

S. No. 31 After Notice Matters

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CPSW No. 84/2016

¶4

Mohammad Ramzan Malla

¶5

…..Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Raies, Adv. vice Mr. L. A. Latief, Adv.

¶7

V/s

¶8

Mr. K. Rajindera And Ors. ….. Respondent(s)

¶9

Through: Mr. Asif, Dy. AG vice Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

02.12.2021

¶14

Petitioner has sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the

¶15

respondents for having violated order dated 02.12.2015 passed by the writ court in SWP No 971/2014. As per the said order, the respondents were directed to conclude the enquiry in accordance with rules within two months and the petitioner was directed to remain available before the enquiry officer on each date. It was further provided that in case despite the petitioner’s regular participation in the enquiry proceedings, enquiry is not concluded within the aforesaid period of two months, then the impugned order No. 408 of 2003 dated 18^th March, 2003 shall be deemed to have been set aside and not in operation after ten weeks from the date of the aforesaid order.

¶16

Statement of facts has been filed by the respondents. In the statement of facts, it has been submitted that the Superintendent of Police City area Zone Srinagar had even before passing of the aforesaid order completed inquiry and findings thereof were sent by said officer to District Police (DPO) Srinagar in terms of communication no. EST/ENQ/SPE/15/2473

¶17

AASIF GUL 2021.12.03 23:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

P a g e | 2 CPSW No. 84/2016

¶19

dated 23.03.2015. The status report further indicates that the recommendations of the enquiry officer have been referred to Police Headquarters in terms of Communication No. KZ/XE/2015/401/40182-84 dated 17.12.2015 for further order in terms of mandate of Rule 338(2) of Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual and final outcome is awaited.

¶20

In view of the statement of facts, it is clear that the enquiry against the petitioner stands concluded and as such said order of the writ court stands complied with. No case for proceeding against the respondents is made out. The contempt proceedings are dropped and the contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

SRINAGAR

¶22

02.12.2021 “Aasif”

¶23

AASIF GUL 2021.12.03 23:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mohammad Ramzan Malla v. Mr. K. Rajindera and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ramzan Malla v. Mr. K. Rajindera and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. S. Hari Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

Haji Mehboob Khan Vs State of Jk and Others

Muhammad Muzamil Mir Vs Managing Director and Ors. (Pdc)

Altaf Hussain Wani Vs Power Development (P.D.D.)(State Government)

Dr. Vijay Laxmi Parihar Vs State of Jk and Ors. (Psc)

Nisar Ahmad Mir Vs State of Jk and Ors. (Revenue)