Decided on April 23,1997

MANOJ KUMAR Respondents


M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)These three appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Petition (C) No. 67/94 on 21 -7 -1995 The first of the appeals is by Sunil Kumar who was the 3rd respondent in the main writ petition No. 645/94 in which an order was passed interlocutorily on a Misc. Petition i.e. C. M P. No. 1468/94 on 25 -8 -1994 which is said to have been violated by the appellants. The appellants in the other two appeals were not parties to the writ petition. They were impleaded only in the contempt proceedings as they were respectively the driver and conductor in the Bus owned by the appellant in Contempt Appeal No. 4/1995.
(2.)On 25 -8 -1994, this Court passed an order in C.M.P. No 1468/94 as follows : Notice as above. Reply within the same time. Respondent No.3 is restrained from plying his Mini Bus No. HP -17 3285 or any other bus on the routes other than covered by Paonta -Rajban via Bangran -Kartarpur (18 Kms.) -
(3.)The respondent in these appeals who was the petitioner in the writ petition filed contempt petitioner (C) No 67/94 on 20 -9 -1994 alleging that the respondents therein had wilfully violated the order of this Court dated 23 -8 -1994. Alongwith the petition he filed certain documents including certain photographs to show that the bus of the appellant in appeal No. 4/95 was being plied in certain places contrary to the directions given by this Court on 25 -8 -1994. The appellants filed independent replies in the contempt proceedings. As regards the appellant in Contempt Appeal No 4/1995 he had stated that he had received an advance notice of the filing of the writ petition and he reached Shimla on 26 -8 1994 with a view to contest the proceedings. He was informed by his lawyer that some stay order had been issued by the Court on the prior date but the exact language of the stay order could not be ascertained. He was under the impression that the challenge in the writ petition was only to the extension granted on 17 -5 -1994 which was a few months prior to the filing of the writ petition and not the extension granted on 29 -7 -1992 which had not been challenged for over two years. The said appellant instructed his lawyer to prepare the reply even though he was not fully aware of the exact language of the interim order According to the appellant 27th of August was Saturday, and the Court was also closed on 28th and 29th of August on account of Sunday and Janamastmi respectively. On 30th of August, the said appellant could ascertain the exact language of the interim order passed on 25 -8 -1994. The reply drafted earlier was approved on the evening of 30th of August and the counsel filed the same in the Court on 31 -8 -1994 alongwith the supporting affidavit of the said appellant. The said appellant returned to Paonta Sahib on 31 -8 -1994 late in the night and immediately instructed his driver and conductor not to ply the bus. According to the reply the bus did not ply beyond the said route from that date onwards. It is also stated in the reply that no copy of the order was as such served on the said appellant or on his driver or conductor. The said appellant has also referred to the previous enmity between the writ petitioner and himself and some proceedings between them in the Court of Subsordinate Judge at Paonta Sahib. Further the said appellant had referred to the photographs and other documents filed by the writ petitioner and contested the genuineness of the same.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.