S.K.MUKHERJEE - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) " In this case Sri A. D. Prabhakar has filed his Vakalatnama for the applicant. During the pendency of this .application, Sri Prabhakar has been appointed as counsel for the Union of India. He, therefore, prayed that the case be adjourned to enable him to inform his client to engage another counsel. This is an application of the year 1986. Senior Standing Counsel for Union of India is present in Court. I do not find any fruitful purpose in issuing notice to the applicant to engage another counsel or grant adjournment, as prayed by Sri Prabhakar. Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court, 1952 (Allahabad), framed under section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, runs as under :- " After giving information about the commission of contempt of court by any person or persons, the informant shall not have any right to appear or plead or argue before the Court unless he is called upon by the Court specify to do so. " In this view of the above rule, there is no right as such in favour of the applicant to argue the case. The entire matter is before the Court and as such, I propose to look into the entire material on record and dispose of the application. The Contempt proceeding is normally limited in between the Court and the alleged contemner and, therefore, also the applicant has no locus standi unless the Court feels that he should be heard. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged. This case, therefore should be disposed of on the materials on record and with the assistance of the Senior Standing Counsel, Union of India. It appears that the applicant filed a writ petition no. 2948 of 1985 and the following interim order was passed on the same on 3-4- 1985 : " List this petition for admission on 6th May, 1985. Respondents may file their counter affidavit by 24th April, 1985. Rejoinder-affidavit may be filed on or before 6th May, 1985. Meanwhile, until further orders of this Court, the petitioner shall be entitled to the payment of his salary and other emoluments due to him as if he had continued in service even after 31st March, 1985 month by month subject to the undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner that in the event of the petition being dismissed, the entire amounts that the petitioner may have drawn in pursuance of this order, shall be refunded by the petitioner to the respondents within 6 weeks of the dismissal of the petition. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty not to take work from the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation which he is occupying as Section Officer until further orders of this Court " This order, it appears, was also confirmed by this Court on 18-9-1985, In this contempt application, it is stated that the opposite parties have been deliberately disobeying the orders of this Court dated 3-4-1985 and 18-9- 1985 ; hence the contempt application.
(3.) NOTICE was issued by this Court on the contempt application on 25-7-1986. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri R. C. Chhadda, Accounts Officer. In the aforesaid counter-affidavit, it has been clearly stated that the amount has already been paid to the applicant and payment, so made, has admittedly, been delayed. An explanation has also been given in the counter- affidavit for the delay in making the payment. This explanation is being accepted by this Court. In the rejoinder-affidavit, this averment has not been disputed. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this application is dismissed with costs on parties and the notice issued by this Court on 25-7- 1986 is hereby, discharged. Application dismissed.;