High Court disposed of a contempt application arising from non-compliance of directions. Respondents were given liberty for petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the Committee through appropriate proceedings.
Petitioner granted liberty to challenge the order in annexure-A through appropriate proceedings.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.278 of 2010
RAJENDRA PANDEY SON OF LATE MAHABIR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PIROUTA, P.S. PIROUTA, DISTRICTBHOJPUR….. ……………………………………PETITIONER
Versus
7 9-3-2011
Pursuant to order passed on 23-2-2011, respondent no.3, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhojpur, Ara and respondent no.4, the District Superintendent of Education, Bhojpur, Ara are personally present in Court. They have also filed show cause to explain the delay
in complying with the directions of this Court and have also tendered unqualified apology.
Since the Deputy Development Commissioner has pleaded that the meeting of the Committee had to be postponed due to personal difficulty, his show cause is accepted particularly, when meeting has already taken place and proceeding of the meeting has been annexed as annexure-A to the show cause of opposite party no.3.
Opposite party no.4 should have been personally present on 23-2-2011 because admittedly on that date the order of the writ court
had not been complied with. He has pleaded that there was communication gap and misunderstanding about the import of order dated 9-2-2011. In the facts and circumstances of the case his show cause is accepted but he should be more careful in future.
2
On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order contained in annexure-A is erroneous and against law. According to him the petitioner’s claim should have been accepted by the Committee and he should have been given benefit of promotion from earlier date on account of allegation that juniors have been given such benefits. Because the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on merits by the concerned Committee, it would not be appropriate to go into the legality or correctness of the order contained in annexure-A in exercise of contempt jurisdiction.
Hence, the contempt application is finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that if so advised he may challenge the order
contained in annexure-A and its communication contained in annexure-
B through an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.
Naresh
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
Rajendra Pandey
State of Bihar
Sri Dr. Safeena A.N.
Sri Amar Chaterjee
Sri Satyendra Singh
Shiva Kirti Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
