S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) ALLEGING disobedience of order dated 08.03.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 612 of 2003 the present Contempt case has been filed. 2. In paragraph Nos. 5 -7, the applicant has stated as under: 5. That however, inspite of lapse of more than six months, the opposite party No. 2 has not complied with the order dated 08.03.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 612 of 2003 by this Hon'ble High Court and the petitioner has not been supplied with any document nor has been given an opportunity of hearing to him or his authorized representative. 6. That moreover, though this Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to quash the order dated 14.12.2002 and the consequent order dated 22.12.2002 by its order dated 08.03.2013 but he is not being paid any amount towards his pension. 7. That in view of the order dated 08.03.2013 the date of contempt starts from 08.09.2013.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant has stated that a copy of the order dated 08.03.2013 was sent by the petitioner through speed post on 26.03.2013 and a proof of the same has been attached along with the contempt petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the direction of this Court was to pass fresh order after supplying copies of the documents and affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant, within six months and since, this has not been done by the contemnor No. 1, the contemnor is liable to be proceeded against by this Court. On a perusal of the contempt petition, I find that in paragraph No. 5 the applicant made a statement that since he has not been supplied with the documents and no opportunity of hearing has been granted to him within the time fixed by this Court, the contemnor has disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 08.03.2013. I am of the opinion that the applicant has not been able to make out a case even for issuing a show -cause to the contemnor No. 1. Merely because the order passed by this Court has been sent by speed post on 26.03.2013, a presumption cannot be drawn that the said order has been received by the contemnor No. 1 and even if it is accepted that the said communication was received by the alleged contemnor, a presumption cannot be drawn that the contemnor has disobeyed the order passed by this Court.
(3.) THE contempt proceeding being quasi -criminal in nature, the same standard of proof is required in the same manner as in other criminal cases. There should be a clear case of intentional obstruction of administration of justice by the alleged contemnor. There must be clear and reliable evidence to substantiate the allegation against the alleged contemnor.;