Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6274 of 2019 Applicant :- Jai Shanker Tiwari Opposite Party :- Vikas Gothalwal, Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra,Raghwendra Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri A.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the opposite party is wilfully flouting the orders dated 14.10.2004 and 27.5.2019 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5535 of 1992 and Special Appeal No. 633 of 2010 respectively. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the aforementioned writ petition was preferred against the termination order dated 10.01.1992 but while allowing the writ petition, the said termination order was set aside and the opposite party was directed to reinstate the applicant in service. Opposite party was further directed to pay arrears of his salary as well as his salary regularly month to month basis after reinstatement within three months. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 was subjected to challenge by means of Special Appeal No. 633 of 2010, the same was initially dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 27.2.2015 passed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, restoration application was preferred to recall the order dated 27.2.2015 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 18.8.2015 with liberty to move fresh application, if so advised. Again, restoration application No. 321919 of 2015 was filed and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.5.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court which reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vimlesh Kuamr Rai, learned counsel for applicants-appellants and perused the record.
2. This is an application seeking recall of order dated 27.02.2015 whereby appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. We find that a restoration application was earlier filed by applicant- appellants being Restoration Application No. 177881 of 2015 which was dismissed by Division Bench vide order dated 18.08.2015 observing that it find no substance to allow application. However, since liberty was given to file fresh application, therefore, this application has been filed but we find that the only ground taken in this application is that Advocate's Clerk could not mark the case. About the information being given by this Court on mobile regarding listing of cases, whether such information was received or not, nothing has been said.
4. Moreover, the only reason is that the case could not be marked by Clerk. This fact has been stated in para 5 of affidavit which has been sworn on the basis of information received but from whom this information was received is not stated at all. Therefore, even swearing of paragraph is not in accordance with law and this averment cannot be relied on to explain the reason for non appearance on the date when appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. We, therefore, are not satisfied by the reason given for non appearance.
5. The application is accordingly dismissed."
In the present matter, after dismissal of the Special Appeal in question, restoration applications have been dismissed twice. As such, there is no legal impediment to comply the order of the Writ Court. It is admitted situation that the matter is pending since long.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self- addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Jaswant