(Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) It appears from the office note that inspite of order dated March 1, 2012 directing the writ-petitioner Ashok Pande to file affidavit of assets, no affidavit has been affirmed till date, and at the same time, the writ-petitioner has neither appeared before us nor has he obtained any order of stay from the Supreme Court - although from December 22, 2011 he is praying for time to bring stay order by writing letters to the learned Registrar General.
In such circumstances, we issue Rule as to why the writ-petitioner Ashok Pande should not be committed to prison or otherwise dealt with for deliberately violating our order dated March 1, 2012 directing him to disclose his assets by way of affidavit.
Let the Rule be made returnable on March 29, 2012.
We further find from the office note that although our order dated March 1, 2012 has been served upon the said writ-petitioner through the concerned police station, the police authority has not arrested him inspite of existence of non-bailable warrant of arrest.
In such circumstances, we direct the concerned police authority to arrest the writ-petitioner and produce him before us on the returnable date, March 29, 2012 unless in the meantime, the petitioner gets any stay order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the writ-petitioner as well as to the concerned police authorities.
The Registry has placed before us a letter dated March 15, 2012 written by the writ-petitioner to the Registrar General of this Court by email informing that against the original order passed by this Court, he has already filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the moment he would get a stay order from the said Court, he would take appropriate steps. He has prayed for deferring the matter for a fortnight. By previous letters written to the Registry, the petitioner has made it clear that he would not comply with our order so long he would not get any order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is the 8th time that the matter has appeared for compliance of the earlier order imposing costs.
In the earlier orders passed by this Court, we have already taken note of filing of such Special Leave Petition and we specifically recorded that the compliance of our order by the petitioner should abide by the decision of the Special Leave Petition.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTG. C.J.] [J.B.
PARDIWALA, J.] mathew Top