Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4230 of 2007 Petitioner :- Arvind Agrawal Respondent :- Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, Manager, M.P.P.A.K.I.C. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Shankar,Ashok Khare Respondent Counsel :- Sc,P.K. Rai,S.N. Tripathi Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Pursuant to the order dated 29.1.2010, Ajay Kumar Shukla, District
Magistrate, Gorakhpur as also the O.P. Nos.2 and 3 are present before this
Court. Sri D.N. Mishra, learned standing counsel has filed an application
seeking exemption of the personal appearance of Ajay Kumar Shukla, District
Magistrate, Gorakhpur for future dates and to discharge the contempt notices,
supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit of compliance it has been stated that
the report as required by the order dated 17.12.2009 had been forwarded to
the Registrar of this Court and was received in the Registry on 28.1.2010 i.e. a
day before the date fixed in the matter. However, it appears that the Registry
could not place the same on record and further the standing counsel had no
instructions from the District Magistrate regarding submission of the said
inquiry report. As such in the absence of any report and any instructions, the
Court had required personal appearance of the District Magistrate to explain
as to why the order was not complied with.
The District Magistrate had complied with the directions of this Court but as
on account of some communication at the level of the Registry, the report
could not be placed before the Court, the personal appearance of the District
Magistrate is exempted till further orders. However, the District Magistrate
should take care that compliance of any order, should at the first instance be
communicated to the person informing him for complying with the order i.e.
to the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. He may, however, also
inform the Registry but the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel
should have been necessarily informed.
The learned counsels for the opposite parties have raised objection that the
contempt application is supported by an affidavit of a Pairokar and not of the
applicant himself. The allegations of disobedience / non-compliance are
disputed and in such a situation, the affidavit of the applicant ought to have
been filed. Contempt proceedings are not like writ petition. They are very
specific and require affidavit of the applicant himself. The learned counsel for
the applicant may file affidavits of the applicant in the same terms as all the
affidavits have been filed on his behalf in this contempt application.
In the report of the City Magistrate as placed before this Court, forwarded by
the District Magistrate, the finding is that the Management has been wanting
the applicant to perform his duties as Clerk regularly but the applicant himself
has been finding ways and means of not performing his duties.
List this matter for further orders on 8.3.2010. By the said date the necessary
affidavits as required may be filed by the applicant. Further personal
appearance of the District Magistrate as also of the O.P. Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall
remain exempted till further orders.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010
pk