- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.
(2.) The appeal is directed against the order dated 19/03/1992 (signed by the Hon'ble Judge on 20/03/1992 passed on an application of the respondent 1 being C. C. A. No. 25 of 1990 for initiating a proceeding for contempt of court against the appellant-State and two of its officers, namely, S. S. Billoria, secretary to government-of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri N. R. Gupta, Commissioner/secretary, government of Jammu and Kashmir for non-compliance of the direction issued by the court under its order 19/03/1990. In view of the order which we are proposing to pass, it is not necessary to deal with all the facts leading to the present case in detail and it will be sufficient for the purposes of the appeal to set out the circumstances briefly, as mentioned hereafter.
(3.) Respondent 1 filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution registered as Writ Petition No. 133 of 1990 for the implementation of, what has been described by Mr Bhandare, the learned counsel for the respondents, as a decree modified subsequently by a compromise between the parties. On 19/03/1990 an ex parte interim order was passed by the High court directing notice to be issued to the respondents in the writ petition as also in the stay matter with a direction that the case would be listed in the second week of May 1990. The order further said that in the meantime, out of the agreed timber in accordance with the compromise entered into between the writ petitioner and the government, 50 per cent of the timber shall be given to the writ petitioner on his furnishing a bond. According to Mr Salve, the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant and its officers were expecting that they were not required to immediately obey the interim direction, as the stay matter was fixed to be heard in the second week of May 1990, and specially as there was no time indicated for compliance of the direction. However, the writ petitioner, without waiting for the next date in the case, filed the application on 2/04/1990 on which the impugned order was passed. According to Mr Salve the stay application was still pending final disposal and the appellant was to be heard. Then again, there was no occasion for assuming that the ex parte order, which did not even mention any period for compliance, had to be obeyed immediately. At this stage it has to be appreciated that the aforesaid direction although passed as an interim order in a pending interlocutory matter was, in substance, a final order allowing the writ petition in part without hearing the other side. The direction was not for maintenance of status quo; nor again was it a restraint order on the State authorities forbiddingthem from taking any step to which the writ petitioner could have an objection. As a result of the interim direction, the writ petitioner was to receive the fruits of the decree (in the language of the learned counsel for the respondents before us, that is, the writ petitioner) to the extent of half. The facts disclose that the stakes in the case are very high. According to the State it had already paid a huge amount of money. Mainly it has discharged its obligation in full. Hence it is not liable to pay anything further or to deliver any timber as claimed by the writ petitioner. That issue remains to be decided at the time of the final hearing of the writ petition.;