PRAKASH NARAIN Vs. SURENDRA MOHAN
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
PRAKASH NARAIN SRIVASTAVA
Click here to view full judgement.
Hari Swarup, J. -
(1.)THIS application has been moved under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution for initiating contempt proceedings against the opposite parties. A writ petition had been disposed of on the basis of an undertaking given by the State Government. That undertaking, according to the petitioner, was not honoured, and he, therefore, moved Criminal Misc. Case No. 471 of 1978 for action under Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Besides the bar of limitation a plea was also taken by the respondent that because the petitioner was not holding the post in the U. P. Palika Administrative Service therefore inspite of the undertaking, the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the post which the petitioner was claiming.
(2.)THAT case came up before the learned Judge who was then dealing with contempt matters and though he came to the conclusion that the Government had violated the undertaking given to Court, he dismissed the application on the ground that the period of one yean had expired. The reference about limitation was obviously to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The order was passed on 2-11-79.
After the order had been passed by this Court, the petitioner again approached the State Government on 22-12-79 and prayed that the petitioner's case be considered In accordance with the undertaking given by the State Government On the petitioner's application dated 22-12-79 moved before the State Government, no orders were passed [by the State Government.
The petitioner has now moved the present application praying that the opposite parties be punished for contempt of Court for not obeying the undertaking given to the court in the writ petition on 24-8-1977. The subject-matter of the present petition is the same as was in Criminal Case No. 471 of 1978. The second petition for the same matter cannot be maintainable ; it must be deemed to be barred by the principle of res-judicata. Even otherwise this application is not maintainable because it is barred by limitation as was the earlier one. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act fixes the limitation of one year from the date of disobedience of the order of undertaking, the limitation cannot be made to run over again by the applicants calling on the respondent to obey the undertaking. The application is rejected.
(3.)THE petitioner has prayed (hat a certificate be granted for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134 of the Constitution. No substantial question of law is involved, a certificate that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court cannot accordingly be granted. THE oral prayer is rejected. Application dismissed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.