Dismissed

Smt Manohar Jangid and Ors. v. Kunji Lal Meena and Other

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2014CCP/914/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an SB Civil Contempt Petition, the Court dismissed the petition for non-compliance of an order dated 13.8.2010. The judgment held that the earlier order merely allowed withdrawal and did not pass any positive direction or set a time frame for the representation, thus no contravention occurred.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed finding no force in the alleged contravention as no time frame was set.

Smt Manohar Jangid and Ors. Vs Kunji Lal Meena and… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

¶2

ORDER

¶3

SB Civil Contempt Petition No.914/2013
in
SB Civil Writ Petition No.4566/2010
Smt. Manohar Jangid & Ors v. Shri Kunji Lal
Meena & Ors

¶4

Date of Order

¶5

:12.9.2014

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶7

None appears

¶8

Non-compliance of the order dated

¶9

13.8.2010 passed by this Court is alleged in
this petition.

¶10

A perusal of the aforesaid order

¶11

indicates that in-fact the petitioners'
counsel merely sought liberty of the Court,
unwarranted at it might have been, to make a
representation to the “concerned authority”
ventilating the petitioners' grievance of not
being considered for re-employment under the
provisions of section 25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of
1947').

¶12

On the permission sought, the Court
merely allowed the withdrawal of the writ
petition observing that if a representation
were indeed to be made as proposed, it would
be expected that the “authority concerned”

¶13

examine as to whether the statutory
requirement of section 25H of the Act of 1947
had been complied with or not qua the
petitioners.

¶14

In my considered opinion the order
dated 13.8.2010 does not entail making of any
direction or passing of any positive order
contravention whereof would entail the
respondents being in contempt. Further it is
also clear from the bare perusal of the order
aforesaid that no time frame had been set up
by this Court in its order dated 13.8.2010
withinwhichconsiderationofthe
representation of the petitioner had to be

¶15

done and failure to adhere to the time frame
entailed contempt of the Court.

¶16

In the facts thus obtaining, I find
no force in the contempt petition. The

¶17

contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

(ALOK SHARMA), J

¶19

Sharma NK

¶20

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been
incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶21

NK Sharma, Sr.P.A

Smt Manohar Jangid and Ors. v. Kunji Lal Meena and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manohar Jangid and Ors. v. Kunji Lal Meena and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawani Singh Shekhwat Vs Manjeet Singh and Others

Mrs Poonam Shekhawat Vs Aparna Arora and Others

Dinesh Nirwan Vs G S Sandhu and Others

Jitendra Singh Parmar and Ors. Vs Shri C S Rajan and Others

Jamana Shanker Vs Purshottam Agarwal

Rupal Tripathi Vs Aprana Arora and Another