BALIA, ACJ. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 7th May, 2007 in S. B. Contempt Petition No. 195/05 arising in respect of order dated 1. 3. 2005 deciding S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3969/2002 vide order under appeal the appellant G. S. Sandhu (appellant in D. B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 561/2007) not guilty of contempt but still imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the ground that though earlier order passed by him is erroneous but he has no occasion to correct that order and, therefore, he is not guilty of contempt. The other appeal is by Sudheer Bhargavea against the order finding him guilty of contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court on 1. 3. 2005 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3969/2002 and imposing a punishment of undergoing simple imprisonment of 15 days with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine Rs. 10,000/-, further be liable for civil imprisonment of 15 days in addition to above. The said writ petition No. 3969/2002 was preferred challenging the order of the State Government dated 25th September, 2002, suspending no objection certificate granted by it to the petitioner-applicant for opening new B. Sc. (N) College vide earlier order dated 24th April, 2002. It appears that during the pendency of the said writ petition the Indian Nursing Council was directed to inspect the petitioner's institution vide its order dated 4th October, 2002 and it was noticed that said report has not been disclosed by the Indian Nursing Council though the inspection has been conducted. The order suspending NOC in case of the petitioner had not been revoked. The petitioner had also complained about the sitting over the matter for such a long period by the authority after suspending NOC issued by the Government and not deciding the matter. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge passed the following order which will be apposite to reproduce in extenso so as to have full import of the order and to consider whether a legitimate grievance about the willful disobedience of the said order is made out or survive for consideration after 12th January, 2006, in the circumstances:- " I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is clear from the Annex. 13 dated 25th Sept. , 2002 that by this order, the no objection certificate itself has not been cancelled by the State Government, but has been suspended only. The State Government only suspended the no objection certificate by order dated 25th Sept. , 2002. Since the matter is pending before the State Government and there is only interim order and the Government has not taken final decision in the matter of revocation of the no objection certificate and meanwhile, according to petitioner, the Nursing Council has inspected the petitioner's institution and according to petitioner, the petitioner's institution complied with all the requirements for the no objection certificate and petitioner in fact, was granted no objection certificate Annex. 4 by the State Government, therefore, the State Government may be directed to decide the matter immediately after considering the reports of the Nursing Council. In view of the above, without going into the allegations of malafide etc. , looking to the nature of the relief claimed by the petitioner, it will suffice to direct the State Government to decide the proceedings initiated vide communication dated 25th Sept. , 2002 about the cancellation of the petitioner's no objection certificate granted by the State Government. The respondent Indian Nursing Council is directed to submit the inspection report to the State Government forthwith if has not been provided to the State Government and the State Government is directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with the rules and the law applicable in the matter of grant/revocation of the no objection certificate for opening the B. Sc. Nursing College. The respondent Indian Nursing Council shall provide the report to the State Government within a period of one month. The State Government shall decide the matter within three months thereafter. In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is partly allowed with the directions to the respondents as mentioned above. " It is in the aforesaid circumstances, in the light of aforesaid direction the petitioner moved S. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 195/2005 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3969/2002 on 17th August, 2005 after serving notice for compliance of the order dated 17. 7. 2005.
(3.) IN the petition, after referring to course of action of events which have been mentioned in the order, the grievance about the non-compliance of the direction dated 1. 3. 2005 was voiced by the petitioner in the following manner:- " 3. That after the decision, on behalf of the petitioner, a notice dated 29. 5. 2005 was served upon the Nursing Council of INdia so as to forward the recommendations to the State Government. A copy of the same is filed herewith and marked as Annexure C/2. 4. That thereafter, the Nursing Council of INdia informed the counsel for the petitioner vide letter dated 15. 6. 2005 that it has taken the steps in terms of the judgment and has sent the requisite information to the State Government. A copy of the letter dated 15. 6. 2005 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure C/3. IN this view of the matter, the Nursing Council of INdia has passed on the requisite information to the Government. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent to do the needful in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. However, good deal of time has elapsed but no steps were taken by the respondent. IN these circumstances, in order to avoid any kind of further litigation, on behalf of the petitioner, a notice for demand of justice dated 17. 7. 2005 was served upon the respondent thorough his counsel and requested him to revoke the suspension of NOC and allocate students to the petitioner's institution in the ensuing session and to do everything which is necessary in the matter. The said notice was sent by registered post. A copy of the notice dated 17. 7. 2005 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure C/4. But, unfortunately, the time stipulated in the notice has also expired but nothing has been done in the matter. 5. That in view of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the respondent is willfully disobeying, disregarding and flouting the order of the Hon'ble High Court inasmuch as despite of receipt of recommendation from the Nursing Council of INdia, he has not revoked the suspension of NOC nor he has allotted the students to the petitioner's institution. Thus, it is clear that the respondent has shown scant regard to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court which clearly tantamount to committing contempt of Hon'ble High Court. " From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the contempt proceedings was primarily for not taking a decision within stipulated period as per order dated 1. 3. 2005 by the State Government. We may notice here that the no date of submission of report by the Indian Nursing Council to the State Government had not been stated in the contempt petition, perhaps it was not within the knowledge of the applicant so as to de-demarcate the exact date of expiry of the period fixed by the Court for deciding the case relating to continuation of NOC. ;