- (1.) IN this contempt petition, petitioners have alleged disobedience by the non-petitioners of the order dated 14.12.2011 as passed in CWP No.6506/2011. The petitioners submit that despite assurance as stated before the Court that the Government would be duly considering the representation within three months of its presentation; and despite the representation having been filed on 30.12.2011 and reminder having been sent on 09.03.2012, the non-petitioners were sitting tight over the matter and not taking decision on the representation.
(2.) ON 10.05.2012, after considering the matter preliminarily, we extended an opportunity to the Government Counsel Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, who had earlier stated assurance on behalf of the State Government in CWP No.6506/2011, to take instructions in the matter. Mr. Bhandawat later on appeared with the non-petitioner No.2, the Director, Technical Education; and pointed out that the comments on the representation had been sent to the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Technical Education Department on 14.02.2012. Mr. Bhandawat, however, expressed want of instructions from the Finance Department. In the circumstances, while issuing notices returnable for this date i.e., 21.05.2012, we had observed that if the decision on the representation would not be taken before this date, both the non-petitioners would remain personally present before the Court. A reply has now been filed on behalf of the non- petitioners No.1 and 2 with the submissions, inter alia, to the effect that the representation so made by the petitioners has been considered and rejected by the Secretary, Department of Technical Education on 18.05.2012 (Annx.R/2). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though he has received a copy of reply along with annexures and therefrom, it appears that a so-called decision has been taken on the representation on 18.05.2012 but then, such a decision has not been in conformity with the letter and spirit of the order passed by this Court in CWP No.6506/2011. The learned counsel further submits that even the comments as forwarded by the Director, Technical Education on 14.02.2012 (Annx.R/1) had not been in conformity with the record of the case. The order dated 14.12.2011, as passed in CWP No.6506/2011, reads as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to file a representation to the competent authorities of the State Government, namely, respondents No.2 and 3 to enable them to examine the case of the petitioners and pass orders appropriately and accordingly, in the light of the grievances made by them in their representation. In case if the representation is decided favourably in favour of the petitioners, then there may not be any need for them to raise any grievances in the court of law. However, in case, if it is decided not to their expectations, then they will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in a court of law, including challenging the constitutional validity of all provisions for which they have filed this writ petition. Since State counsel Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat has assured that the representation once made, would be duly considered and, therefore, this order is being passed. It is subject to this observation and liberty that this petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Government to decide the representation within three months from the date of its presentation by the petitioners. Let the petitioners file representation within three weeks as directed." In view of the contents of the order dated 14.12.2011, it is but apparent that the Court did not examine the merits of the case but only permitted the petitioners to file a representation so as to enable the competent authorities to examine their case. Observations were further made by the Court that in case of decision being not favourable to them, the petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in the Court of law including challenging the constitutional validity of all the provisions for which they had filed the writ petition. While recording assurance made by the learned counsel for respondents about due consideration of the representation, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners as noticed above and with direction to the State to decide the representation within three months from the date of its presentation.
(3.) OF course, there had been some delay on the part of the respondents inasmuch as they did not take the final decision on the representation within three months as required; but in that regard, an unconditional apology has been stated in the reply and in the totality of the circumstances, we are satisfied that the delay and default had been unintentional. So far as merits of the case are concerned, as noticed, the earlier writ petition was disposed of by the Court while giving a chance to the petitioners to make the representation and the corresponding chance to the Government to duly consider the same. The Court, otherwise, left the entire matter open while giving liberty to the petitioners to file, if so required, appropriate proceedings in the Court of law including challenging the constitutional validity of all the provisions for which the petition has been filed. Thus, unfavourable decision on the representation cannot, by itself, operate prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners in filing appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court. So far as the validity of decision on the representation by the authorities is concerned, the submission as sought to be made by the petitioners before us travel to the extent of questioning the comments as forwarded by the Directorate and the final decision as taken by the Government as being not in conformity with the facts and the law. Suffice is to observe in this regard that we cannot enlarge the scope of this contempt petition so as to examine the merits of the orders passed by the non-petitioners. It goes without saying that the petitioners are at liberty to challenge these orders (Annxs.R/1 and R/2) in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. ;