Court No. - 59
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3084 of 2018 Applicant :- Dhananjay Kumar Opposite Party :- Sri Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Basic Shiksha Adhikari And 2 Other Counsel for Applicant :- In Person
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard the applicant who appears in person.
On 22 February 2018, a learned Judge passed the following order on the applications moved by the petitioner:
"Ref: Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 306332 of 2014.
This is an application for recalling the order dated 14.8.2014 whereby delay condonation application as well as restoration application were rejected.
Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar in person and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.
The facts which are relevant for deciding the present application are as under:
On 10.4.2006, this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner with the observation that, if the petitioner is aggrieved he can make a representation to the competent authority i.e. respondent no. 2 regarding payment of interest. It was further observed that if such a representation is filed, the respondent no. 2 will consider the same and will pass appropriate order. For ready reference the order passed on 10.4.2006 is quoted hereunder:
"List has been revised. No one appears to press this petition.
The relief sought in the present writ petition is that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 1,23,736.00 from June 1998 till today as well as Rs. 27,226.00 from June 1996 till date, as such, the total amount comes to Rs. 1,50,962.00. Further prayer has been made directing the respondent to produce the service book of the mother of the petitioner so that the clearance of L.I.C. as well as Provident Fund may be cleared and accordingly the statement of account of Rs. 3,275.00 for insurance as stated in Para 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed as Annexure 6 and to pay Rs. 5,000.00.
The writ petition was filed for payment of certain amounts for which the petitioner was entitled but the petitioner states that the aforesaid amounts have not been paid in time, as such, the petitioner is entitled for interest and compound interest at the rate of 18%.
A counter affidavit has been filed. In paras 4,5,9,10 and 12 of the counter affidavit, detailed has been given that the various amounts due to the petitioner have already been paid. The said counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Nanlal Yadav working as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur. A counter affidavit on behalf of one T.D. Singh Chauhan, who was working as Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari has also stated that all the amounts have already been paid.
In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioner. In spite of the aforesaid fact, if the petitioner is aggrieved he can make a representation regarding payment of interest to the competent authority i.e. respondent No. 2. If such representation is filed, the respondent No.2 will consider the same and will pass appropriate orders.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."
Subsequently, petitioner filed Modification Application No. 150300 of 2011 for modifying of the dated 10.4.2006. quoted above. This modification application was rejected vide order dated 22.7.2011 which reads as under:
"Final order was passed on 10.4.2006. Now this application has been filed in 2011 stating therein that the amount has not been paid. Admittedly, petitioner is approaching this Court after a lapse of five years from the date of order. No explanation has been given that for a period of five years what efforts have been made by petitioner to get the amount if it was not paid in spite of averment made in the counter affidavit.
In such circumstances, there is no occasion to modify the order. It is, however, open to petitioner to approach the authorities with complete details that what amount has not been paid and if according to respondent, it is paid, to whom it is paid.
The application for modification is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs."
Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No. 266422 along with delay condonation application for recall of the order dated 22.7.2011 which was also rejected by the Court vide order dated 1.10.2012. For ready reference, the order dated 1.10.2012 is reproduced below:
"Civil Misc. Dealy Condonation Application No. 266418 of 2011;
List has been revised. No one appears to press the Delay Condonation Application filed in support of Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 266422 of 2011.
The Delay Condonation Application is, accordingly, rejected. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 266422 of 2011;
As the Delay Condonation Application has been rejected, the Restoration Application is rejected."
The petitioner thereafter again filed Recall Application No. 315529 of 2012 for recalling the order dated 1.10.2012 along with the delay condonation application, which too was rejected on 14.8.2014 after hearing the petitioner, by the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
I have perused the record as well as the order dated 22.7.2011 of this court dismissing the modification application seeking modification of the order dated 10.14.2006 by which the writ petition was dismissed on merits.
The order dated 22.7.2011 is a speaking order, by which the modification application has been dismissed by this court. The petitioner has allowed three years to pass. The petitioner himself is a guilty of latches.
The delay condonation application as well as restoration application is dismissed."
Now, the present application has been moved by the petitioner on 12th September, 2014 for recalling the order dated 14.8.2014, on the ground that he was not heard.
Perusal of the order quoted above clearly indicates that the petitioner was heard. Thus, the ground taken in the present application is totally against the record misconceived and therefore, is not sustainable.
In the circumstances narrated above, I find no justifiable reason to recall the order dated 14.8.2014. It may also be pointed out here that the petitioner is unnecessarily filing applications after application here in this petition, but at the same time has failed to represent his grievance before concerned authorities in compliance of the initial order dated 10.4.2006.
The application being totally misconceived, is hereby rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue his grievance, if any, before the concerned authority. There shall be no order as to cost. "
The Court notes that the learned Judge was constrained to observe that the applicant was unnecessarily filing applications and therefore, was not entitled to any relief. All that the learned Judge ultimately observed was that liberty was granted to the applicant to pursue his grievance.
The Court finds no merit in this petition which shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 LA/-