- (1.) Both Mr. Bhandare and Mr. Attorney General contend that having regard to the developments in the case as indicated in the affidavits which have been filed recently it is necessary that the respondent No. I is personally present in Court when the matter is considered further. Mr. Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed this prayer mainly on the ground that no prima facie case for contempt has been made out.
(2.) Earlier a notice had been issued to the respondent No.1 to appear in person on the 24th of March, 1992, but he did not appear personally on that crate and was represented by a counsel. We had also categorically recorded a finding that a prima facie case for starting a proceeding for contempt against the respondent had been made out. On the subsequent dates also he was represented by one learned advocate or another who, on his behalf, repeatedly assured this Court that the respondent was ready and anxious to obey the orders of this Court in letter and spirit. On the 30th March, 1992 when Mr. Ram Jethmalani, senior advocate, was appearing for him, an affidavit by the respondent No.1 was filed inter alia stating that he had realised that the law declared by this Court is binding on everyone and that he would not take any action or omit to take any action inconsistent with the orders of this Court. Mr. Jcthmalani invited our attention pointedly to the word 'realised' and stressed on its significance. However, serious objections are being raised by the petitioners against the steps taken subsequently by the respondent No.1 as detailed in the affidavits. We have considered the circumstances and are of the view that respondent No.] should be personally present in the Court during the hearing of this case and accordingly we direct him to appear in person in this Court at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, the 5th of May, 1992, to which date the case is adjourned. Mr. Arvind Kumar, the respondent's advocate, at this stage suggests that the notice may be additionally sent to the respondent personally. We do not think this necessary as Mr. Kumar representing the respondent No. I is present when this order is being dictated so that he has a duty to inform the respondent of this order, in addition to the fact that such a notice has already been issued earlier to respondent No.1.
(3.) Mr. Attorney General is also present and we draw his attention to the fact that in the event of respondent No.1 choosing not to appear in spite of this further direction, the Union of India will have to take such measures as may be necessary for the enforcement and obedience of the present order requiring the personal presence of the respondent No.1 in Court.;