Court No. - 34
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 912 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Som Veer Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard Sri M.A. Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Som Veer, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner claims that Excise authorities are violating Supreme Court's judgment by allowing liquor shops not in accordance with the distance as prescribed by Supreme Court.
3. Basically grievance of petitioner is that judgment of Supreme Court is being violated and Excise authorities are committing contempt of Supreme Court's order. If that be so, and if there is contempt of Supreme Court's order the remedy lies before Supreme Court since under the Constitution Supreme Court can take action of its own contempt being Court of record under Article 129 of Constitution of India, which reads as under:
“129. Supreme Court to be a court of record- The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”
4. We, therefore, do not find it a fit case warranting interference.
5. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 PS