Court No. - 35 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2446 of 2009 Petitioner :- Balbir Singh Respondent :- Sri D.C. Shukla, District Magistrate Petitioner Counsel :- S.V. Goswami Respondent Counsel :- S.C. Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
The following order was passed on 11.12.2009:
“The following order was passed on 20.11.2009:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This contempt petition has been filed with the allegation that despite the
following order dated 2.2.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 28043 of 2008 the
opposite party has not considered his grievance:
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. With
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being
disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, which may be placed on record.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged an order dated
1/2nd June, 2008 passed under Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act, whereby his financial and administrative powers have been withdrawn.
By means of a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has filed documents to
show that the final enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner in
which he has been exonerated. All that the petitioner now prays is that the
District Magistrate, Mathura, respondent No. 2 may be directed to decide the
matter afresh in the light of the final enquiry report submitted on 24/12/2008.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and with consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed off with a
direction that in case if with regard to his grievances made in this writ
petition, the petitioner files a comprehensive representation before the
respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Mathura along with a certified
copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance
with law and appropriate orders after considering the final enquiry report
shall be passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura, respondent No. 2,
positively, within two weeks from the date of filing of the representation.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is finally
disposed of. No order as to costs.”
Upon issuance of notice, the opposite party has filed an affidavit of
compliance annexing therewith an order dated 21.8.2009 rejecting his claim
and representation on the basis of a fresh enquiry report dated 17.8.2009.
Initially after filing of the aforesaid compliance affidavit the proceedings
were dropped on 1.9.2009. However, a recall application dated 11.10.2009
was filed stating that against the resultant order dated 21.8.2009, Writ
petition Petition No. 46128 of 2009 was filed by the applicant where an
interim order was passed and notices were issued. It appears that thereafter
the opposite party recalled the order dated 21.8.2009 vide his order dated
11.9.2009 thus he still is in contempt of the aforesaid writ order.
The opposite party is directed to appear in person on the next date with his
explanation why he should not be tried and punished for misleading the court,
overreaching it orders and not complying with it in letter and spirit in a bona
fide manner.
List on 11.12.2009.”
Shri D.N. Mishra, learned Standing counsel informs that a casualty has
occurred in the family of the opposite party and therefore, he is unable to
appear today.
List for further orders on 29.1.2010.”
In pursuance thereof, the opposite party is present along with an exemption
application supported by an affidavit stating that the writ order has been
complied in its letter and spirit.
Let a reply be filed by the next date.
List on 19.2.2010.
Order Date :- 29.1.2010
AK
