BAKHSHISH KAUR,J - (1.) THIS is a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) BHAGAT Singh-petitioner is a cent per cent handicapped person. He was allotted space at the Railway Platform Beas for running a PCO/STD booth under the scheme of rehabilitation for physically handicapped/educated unemployed. He had been complying with the terms and conditions besides making payment of rent. He had invested Rs. 2 lakhs for setting up a Public Call Office (hereinafter referred to as 'PCO'). In the garb of making fresh allotment, tender was issued inviting fresh applications from educated unemployed persons. Though the existing PCOs were not to be affected, still the railway authorities refused to allow the PCO/STD booth holders to run the PCOs on the plea that the new policy has been framed. The action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to continue with his PCO was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No. 504 of 2001. While issuing notice of motion for January 29, 2001, the petitioner was permitted to continue the facility for running telephone booth at the existing site.
(3.) THAT although the service of notice was effected upon the respondent, but the case was not taken up on 29th January, 2001 and it was adjourned to March 14, 2001. Thus, respondent No. 2 on the instructions of respondent No. 1 closed the PCO of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner sent a telegram on 1st February, 2001 to respondent No. 2 requesting him to allow the petitioner to open the PCO booth immediately. Respondent No. 2 had refused to honour or comply with the request made by the petitioner to allow him to operate the booth. Even the fax message sent by his counsel was not taken note of. In this way, the respondents have committed contempt of Court by intentionally flouting the order dated January 29, 2001.;