- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) A notice in contempt had been issued by the High Court to the Appellant. However by an order made on 19.1.99 the Rule in that matter was discharged. The High Court nevertheless proceeded to make the order in the following terms thereby by giving several directions to the parties in the matter: "Respondent-mining Department, Punjab shall allow the petitioner Gurjinder Singh so far as the extraction of sand, bajri etc. is concerned from the Shamlat land vesting in the Gram Panchayat under Section 4 and 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 situated in village Adhrera Hadbast No. 122 on the terms and conditions of lease to be settled by the Gram Panchayat with him, if not already settled. Mining officer of the Department of Industries, Punjab shall not allow Respondent No. 2 Sukhvinder Singh or anybody else to extract sand etc. from that land. The money deposited by Respondent No. 2 with the Mining Department of the State of Punjab shall be refunded to him with interest at the rate of rs. 12% per annum. If in pursuance of the auction held in favour of Sukhvinder Singh Respondent by the Mining Department of the State of Punjab, Sukhvinder Singh-Respondent has extracted any sand, bajri etc. , the Mining Department may, if advised, institute suit for compensation against him in appropriate court of law. "
(3.) It is this portion of the order that is under challenge. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that having discharged the Appellant the proceedings stood terminated and hence there is no question of issuing directions by the High Court; that when the Court is no longer seized of the 'his' travelled far beyond scope of the contempt proceeding. We find great force in this submission.;