- (1.) THE order passed by this Court on 8.1.2002, in so far as the directions contained in Para 6' therein are concerned, has not been complied with and implemented by the Respondents. In that order this Court had clearly directed that till the respondents take a final decision with regard to the opening of the Passport Office in Ranchi, the existing Passport Office at Patna shall function in Ranchi for a period of two weeks every month. It was also a specific direction to this Court in the aforesaid order that the said arrangement (of the Patna Passport Office operating in Ranchi for two weeks every month) would come into effect from 4th March, 2002. Admittedly, despite the aforesaid directions the respondents have not started the functioning of the Ranchi office from 4th March, 2002.
(2.) THE aforesaid direction was issued by this Court apparently because of the uncertain stand taken by the respondents about setting up of a Passport Office for the State of Jharkhand, even though respondents had submitted in the Court that they were contemplating opening a fullfledged office for Jharkhand State in the near future. Because the public of Jharkhand was immensely suffering on account of inordinate delays in the processing of their applications and in the ultimate issuance of Passports (in most' of the cases at least spanning to more than few months), the aforesaid interim arrangement was ordered to alleviate the sufferings of the people. The respondents have not implemented and complied with the aforesaid order of this Court. Why they have not done so has not at all been explained. If the order did not find favour with them, it was open to the respondents to have either asked for the same being modified or even vacated. Alternatively, they had the option of challenging the correctness and legality of the said order in the Supreme Court. They did neither. Yet they are not implementing the direction. Respondents appear to be, thus, prima facie in contempt of this Court. We, therefore, have no option but to issue a Rule against the respondents to show cause and explain to this Court as to why they should not be proceeded against for committing contempt of this Court. Mr. Prasad learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Central Govt. appears on behalf of the respondents in this contempt Rule and undertakes to file the show cause on their behalf by the next date supported by appropriate affidavits.
(3.) AT the request of Mr. Prasad, the matter is fixed for 1.4.2002.;