- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the petitioner/applicant. It is, inter alia, prayed that the opposite party be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by disobeying the order dated 2-12-1992 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23421 of 1991. The present contempt petition was filed on 15-5-1993.
(2.) ON 17-5-1993, the Court passed the following order on the contempt petition: "by an order dated 2-12-1992 the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was directed to decide the dispute relating to the petitioner appointment. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari has fixed 11-3-1993 as the date on which the opposite parties were to be heard for deciding the dispute. It is alleged that on 11-3-1993 no proceeding was conducted and the petitioner was directed to come after sometime and no date has been fixed. It has also been alleged that Basic Shiksha Adhikari is unnecessarily delaying the hearing of the case. The petitioner is directed to file a copy of the order-sheet in the present Contempt Petition relating to various dates fixed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari will issue official receipt of receiving copy of this Order. List on 9-7-1993. " A perusal of the order dated 17-5-1993, quoted above, shows that the petitioner/applicant was directed to file a copy of the said order dated 17-5-1993 before the opposite party, and the opposite party was directed to issue official receipt of receiving copy of the said order. No direction for issuance of notice to the opposite party on the contempt petition was given by the said order dated 17-5-1993. A perusal of the record including the order-sheet of the contempt petition shows that even though the case was put up before the Court on a few dates thereafter, but no order has been passed on the contempt petition after the said order dated 17-5-1993. Nothing appears to have been brought on record by the petitioner/applicant to show the future developments after the passing of the said order dated 17-5-1993.
(3.) IT is, thus, evident that no order has so far been passed directing for issuance of notice to the opposite party on the contempt petition. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by directing for issuance of notice to the opposite party now after a lapse of about 11 years since the filing of the contempt petition in May, 1993.;