S.K.SEN, C.J., - (1.) We have heard Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Bushra Maryam for the appellant-writ petitioner, Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
(2.) Since both the special appeals arise out of two separate orders passed by the learned single Judge in the same writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41020 of 2001, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.
(3.) Special appeal No. 1181 of 2001 is directed against the order dated 7-12-2001 passed in Writ Petition No.41020 of 2001, whereby, the learned single Judge has passed the following order : "Mr. Ramji Pandey, Petitioner No.2, one of the partners of the firm, petitioner No.1, is present in person. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, Advocate, who has appeared for respondent No.4. According to Mr. Bhatia, an amount of Rs.16,00,000.00 is due against the petitioners at present. The petitioners approached this Court several times and this Court taking a lenient view in the matter directed the petitioners to deposit the amount within the time presecribed, but the petitioners deliberately and willfully did not deposit the amount in question till date. The petitioners including Mr. Ramji Pandey, have thus flouted the order dated 28-5-1999 passed in Writ Petition 23269 of 1999, order dated 28-6-1999 passed in special Appeal No.504 of 1999, order dated 18-4-2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 27565 of 2000 and order dated 15-5-2001 passed on an application filed in Writ Petition No. 27565 of 2000 by this Court. All the petitioners are prima facie guilty of contempt of this Court. I therefore, in exercise of power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, direct the Court Officer of this Court to take Mr. Ramji Pandey in judicial custody till sunday. He shall be produced before me on Monday. On the said date Mr. Ramji Pandey and petitioners No.3 and 4 will show cause as to why they should not be punished for committing contempt of this Court. Issue notices to the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 accordingly. List/put up on Monday." ;