S.N.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) PRESENT contempt petition has its genesis in the order dated 26.8.1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 1424 of 1994 the alleged flouting of which has been stated to be causative factor for institution of the contempt petition.
(2.) THE background of the Institution of the contempt petition is that by means of the order dated 26.8.1994, the Principal, Government Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology, Teliarganj, Allahabad was enjoined to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. It is alleged that the conduct of the Principal aforestated in not honouring the order in compliance has manifested his contumacious disregard and displayed wilful disrespect to the order of this Court. In the wake of filing of the contempt petition, notices were issued and in response to the notices, counter -affidavit came to be filed by the contemnor, namely L.N. Mishra,, in which it has been categorically averred that final1 orders had already been passed on 20.3.1995 on the representation of the petitioner dated 16.1.1995 thereby accepting the claim of the petitioner. Copy of the order has also been annexed to the counter -affidavit as Annexure CA -2 to bolster up the above statements. It has also been averred in the counter -affidavit that since the order had already been observed in compliance, cause of action was rendered pointless with the passing of the order dated 20.3.1995.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the record, it is evident that the contempt petition was instituted on 31.3.1995 and if the matter is viewed from the angle of the averments made in the counter -affidavit, it would appear that the contempt petition came to be filed after the order of the Court had already been observed in compliance and by this reckoning, at the time of institution of the contempt petition, it would appear that there was no subsisting factor furnishing foundation for filling of the contempt petition. Yet another aspect unfolds itself from a glance through the record and it is that the petition was instituted through Sri Bashistha Tiwari, Advocate on 3.4.1995 who continued to represent the petitioner upto the stage of filing of the counter -affidavit by the Standing Counsel i.e. on 1.9.1995. It would appear from the perusal of the counter affidavit that it was specifically asserted that the order dated 26.8.1994 had already been honoured in compliance inasmuch as representation of the petitioner was decided and an increment of Rs. 15/ - was sanctioned with retrospective effect i.e. 1.9.1979 attended with all consequential benefits and to enforce this assertion, copy of the order dated 20.3.1995 passed in compliance has been annexed. It would further transpire from the record that Sri B.L. yadav Advocate stepped into to represent the petitioner and filed application on 15.11.2000 embodying prayer to implead Smt. Uslia Biraji, Director, Technical Education, U.P., Kanpur. He appears to have stampeded into filing the aforesaid application without making inspection of the record. The application came up for consideration before the Court on 21.11.2000 on which date it was rejected by the Court on the premises that it did no display cause title so as to indicate on whose behalf it was moved or the provisions under which it was moved attended with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application. Another application followed on 28.11.2000 with the self same prayer to implead Smt. Usha Biraji, Director, Technical Education and on this application, the Court passed order to list it with previous papers.;