T.S.Misra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner had filed a writ petition No. 2970 of 1981 challenging the validity of the order of his retirement dated 10-7-1980. An interim order was also passed in that writ petition on 29-6-1981 staying the operation of the retirement order dated 10-7-80. THE applicant alleges that he could not get the certified copy of the said order because it might have been signed by the Hon'ble Judge after 4 p. m., hence certified copy of the same was delivered to him on 1-7-81 and he served the same on the opposite-party on 1-7-81. Further he says in para 5 of the petition that as the certified copy of the order could not be obtained on 30-6-1981 his counsel Sri Raj Kumar, Advocate, informed him through a letter about the stay of the impugned order and his inability to obtain the certified copy of the stay order on 29-6-1981. Me goes on to say in paragraph 6 of his application that he filed an application before the opposite-party along with the letter of Sri Raj Kumar Advocate intimating that the impugned retirement order has been stayed by this Hon'ble: Court and the certified copy of the 6ame shall be submitted when it is obtained. He says that this application was received by the opposite-party on 30-6-1981. THEreafter he also filed a certified copy of the order on 1-7-81. According to the applicant the opposite party though had knowledge of the stay order dated 29-6-81 deliberately disregarded the same. He says that the counsel for the State Government was present in the court when the stay order was being dictated and, therefore, the opposite-party has committed contempt of court. THE application has been opposed and a counter affidavit has been filed.
(2.) IT has been said in the counter-affidavit that the letter of the applicant was received in the office on 30-6-1981 at 3.30 p. m., and along with that letter a letter purporting to be from one Sri Raj Kumar Advocate was also received. Further it is stated that the applicant had not submitted any affidavit to the effect that he had been granted the stay order on 29-6-1981. Moreover, the said letter also did not reproduce t:he exact order passed by the Hon'ble Court. The retirement of the applicant from service came into effect after 12 noon on 30-6-1981. The applicant's letter was received by the diarist Sri Ahibaran Lal of the office of the opposite party at 3.30 p. m, on 30-6-1981. By that time the applicant had already retired from service. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit it has been averred that before the stay order dated 29-6-1981 was served on the opposite party or was brought to his notice the applicant had retired from service on 30-6-198! in the afternoon and had ceased to perform his duties. IT is also pointed out in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that the writ petition in which the said interim order was passed has already been dismissed on 14-5-1982. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant was ordered to retire on 30-6-81 after 12 upon.He approached this Court and obtained an interim order on 29-6-1981 whereby the operation of the order dated 10-7-1980 was stayed.It has to be seen whether the opposite-party Sri Krishna Gopal Goel, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department had the knowledge of the stay order dated 29-6-1981 at any time before 12 noon of 30-6-1981. The order of 29-6-1981 was passed during summer vacations. Significantly, on 29-6-1981 the opposite-party Sri Krishna Gopal Goel took the charge of his Division as Superintending Engineer, VI Circle Irrigation Department in the forenoon.He says that his office received the certified copy of the stay order only on 1-7-1981.Prior to that, the applicant had tried to inform the Superintending Engineer of the said stay order by his letter which was delivered at 3.30 p. m., on 30-6-1981. That letter also did not incorporate in specific terms the interim order passed by this Court. The letter of Sri Raj Kumar Advocate was, however, enclosed with the letter of the applicant. Sri Raj Kumar Advocate had informed his client that this Court had stayed the order of retirement of the applicant. He also informed that the certified copy of the order would be available only on the next day. The petitioner in the meantime had retired at 12 noon on 30-6-1981. Obviously the information of the stay order was conveyed to the opposite party at 3.30 p. m. on 30-6-1981 and not at or before 12 noon when the petitioner had retired.The Supreme Court has held in the case of K. Ramdas Shenoy v. The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Udipi, AIR 1976 SC 994 that by not acting upon an uncertified copy of the judgment an officer cannot be held guilty of contempt of court. In that case a photostate copy of a copy of the judgment was filed before the officer concerned who asked that a certified copy of the judgment be produced so that he may take further action on his application. No certified copy was, however, produced; hence the Supreme Court observed that it could not legally be held that the officer had been guilty of contempt of court in not acting upon an uncertified copy of the judgment. Similarly in B. K. Ka, v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the Orissa High Court, 1961 AWR 514 it was held that before a subordinate court can be found guilty of disobeying the order of the Superior Court and thus to have committed contempt of Court it is necessary to show that the disobedience was intentional. There is no room for inferring an intention to disobey an order unless the person charged had knowledge of the order. In that case a telegram was sent intimating that a stay order had been passed. The Supreme Court observed that " had the telegram been received from the court or from an advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant before the High Court and addressed either to the Court or pleader for the complainant different considerations would have arisen and it may have been possible to take the view that the information contained therein had the stamp of authenticity. The Supreme Court, however, laid a note of caution by saying : " of course, we do not want to lay it down here as law that every telegram purporting to be signed by an advocate or a pleader is per se guarantee of the truth of the facts stated therein and also of the fact that it was actually sent by the person whose name it bears. In order to assure the court about these matters an affidavit from the party would be necessary. " In the case in hand the applicant had enclosed with his letter a letter of his Advocate Sri Raj Kumar but it was not accompanied by any affidavit. Therefore, the authenticity of the letter could not be assured. The applicant had already retired before that letter was even served in the office of the opposite party. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention that the opposite-party had acquired the knowledge of the stay order on 30-6 1981 before 12 noon. It is also difficult to accept the contention that on the facts of the case the opposite party has intentionally disregarded the order of the Court. In the circumstances the application must fail.
(3.) THE application is accordingly rejected and the notice issued to the opposite party Sri Krishna Gopal Goel is discharged. Application rejected.;