Sh. Vijay Singh, Secretary Home & Anr. Vs. Mittanlal Hindoliya
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 14920 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.95 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore in M.A.No.99 of 1994)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.95 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore in M.A.No.99 of 1994)
Petitioner: Sh. Vijay Singh, Secretary Home & Anr.
Respondent: Mittanlal Hindoliya
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 14920 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.95 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore in M.A.No.99 of 1994)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.95 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore in M.A.No.99 of 1994)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 01, 1996
Appearances:
Mr.Prashant Kumar and Mr.S.K.Agnihotri, Advocates for the appell-ants
Dr.I.B.Gaur, Advocate for the Respondent
Head Note:
Contempt of Courts Act
Section 12 – Held allowing appeal and setting aside direc-tions of the Tribunal, that in view of finding about no delib-erate disobeying of order there is no power to issue further directions – It is a case where due consideration was given to respondent’s representation as per direction given by Tribunal- Directions set aside.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal by special leave arises form the order in the contempt proceedings dated August 1, 1995 made by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Indore in Miscellaneous Appli-cation No. 99 of 1994.
4. The admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the Police Department on January 1, 1960 and his date of birth in the High School Certificate was August 5, 1934. In 1992, he filed an application in the Tribunal for correction of his date of birth contending that his date of birth was July 16, 1938. The Tribunal by order dated February 25, 1994 disposed of the application with a direction to consider the representation of the respondent. The representation was consid-ered and rejected by proceedings dated May 23, 1994. Consequent-ly, the respondent filed a contempt application contending that the appellants have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Tribunal and sought for initiation of the proceed-ings against the appellants under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the respondent has not deliberately disobeyed the orders of the court as direction was to consider the case afresh on the finding that the Director General of Police had not applied his mind to the issue and, therefore, the impugned order came to be issued. The question is: whether the Tribunal was right in its giving directions. It is seen that the Assistant Inspector General of Police who is the Administrative Officer assists the Administrator,namely, the Director General of Police. He had put up the note on it and after consideration of it the Director General of Police had made a note “inform the respondent”. Obviously, after consideration of the case he did not agree with the claim of the respondent and accepted the report submit-ted by his sub-ordinate, viz., Assistant Inspector General of Police. Thus, it would be a case where due consideration was given to the respondent’s representation as per the directions given by the Tribunal.The Tribunal having held that the respondent has not deliberately disobeyed the order, there is no power to issue further directions.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The directions are set aside. No Costs.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal by special leave arises form the order in the contempt proceedings dated August 1, 1995 made by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Indore in Miscellaneous Appli-cation No. 99 of 1994.
4. The admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the Police Department on January 1, 1960 and his date of birth in the High School Certificate was August 5, 1934. In 1992, he filed an application in the Tribunal for correction of his date of birth contending that his date of birth was July 16, 1938. The Tribunal by order dated February 25, 1994 disposed of the application with a direction to consider the representation of the respondent. The representation was consid-ered and rejected by proceedings dated May 23, 1994. Consequent-ly, the respondent filed a contempt application contending that the appellants have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Tribunal and sought for initiation of the proceed-ings against the appellants under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the respondent has not deliberately disobeyed the orders of the court as direction was to consider the case afresh on the finding that the Director General of Police had not applied his mind to the issue and, therefore, the impugned order came to be issued. The question is: whether the Tribunal was right in its giving directions. It is seen that the Assistant Inspector General of Police who is the Administrative Officer assists the Administrator,namely, the Director General of Police. He had put up the note on it and after consideration of it the Director General of Police had made a note “inform the respondent”. Obviously, after consideration of the case he did not agree with the claim of the respondent and accepted the report submit-ted by his sub-ordinate, viz., Assistant Inspector General of Police. Thus, it would be a case where due consideration was given to the respondent’s representation as per the directions given by the Tribunal.The Tribunal having held that the respondent has not deliberately disobeyed the order, there is no power to issue further directions.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The directions are set aside. No Costs.
