Single judge held the contempt petition premature as it was not satisfied that the order dated March 18, 2013 was specifically communicated to the respondent for action.
Petition disposed of as premature with liberty to approach again after complying by registered post.
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.
COCP No. 2178 of 2013
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
COCP 2178 of 2013
Date of Decision: August 23, 2013
Dalip Singh and others
…..Petitioners
Vs.
Shriniwas Vashist, DGP Haryana.
…..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr.A.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners complaining that the order dated March 18, 2013 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court directing the DGP to consider the claim of the petitioners as raised in legal notice dated October 11, 2012 by a speaking order, has not been complied with though the period of four months has elapsed.
Since the order dated March 18, 2013 had been passed without any notice to respondent and the petitioners also seem to have not
Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.06 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
COCP No. 2178 of 2013
[2]
specifically averred in the petition that the order has been communicated to the respondent, it is vaguely mentioned in the petition that the petitioners had approached the department and gave a photocopy of the order passed by this Court.
In view of the above circumstances, I am not satisfied that the order passed by this Court has been specifically communicated to the respondent for necessary action.
This petition is disposed of as premature with liberty to the petitioners to communicate the order passed by this Court by registered post for compliance. In case the compliance is not made, it will be open to the petitioners to approach this Court again within reasonable time.
August 23, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.06 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition regarding non-compliance of an order dated March 18, 2013 is maintainable as the order was allegedly not communicated to the respondent.
Dalip Singh and others
Shriniwas Vashist
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
