Delhi High Court
G.P. Roy vs K. Mohan Das on 4 May, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th May, 2011.
+ CONT.CAS(C) 317/2011
G.P. ROY ..... Petitioner/Relator.
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Versus
K. MOHAN DAS ..... Respondent/Alleged Contemnor.
Through: Mr. Arvind Sharma & Mr. Aditya
Malhotra, Advocates.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No.
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No.
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. Contempt is averred of the order dated 11 th July, 2006 in W.P.(C)
No.10869/2006 stated to be still pending. On enquiry as to whether the
order dated 11th July, 2006 was confirmed subsequently or not, the counsel
states that no further order has been made.
2. The writ petition was filed impugning the appointment vide letter
dated 3rd July, 2006 of Mr. Ranjit Lahiri as Chairman-cum-Managing
Director (CMD) of M/s Hooghly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. (HDPEL),
Kolkata. The writ petition was accompanied with an application for interim
relief.
3. This Court on 11th July, 2006 while issuing notice of the writ petition
and the application for interim relief merely observed:
"In the meantime, the impugned appointment of
respondent no.3 will be subject to the result of this writ
petition".
4. It is averred that vide communication dated 12 th/13th July, 2010 the
Ministry of Shipping conveyed the sanction of the President of India to the
appointment aforesaid of Mr. Lahiri w.e.f. 7 th July, 2006 (FN) thereby
confirming his appointment. The said action is alleged to be contumacious.
5. This Court having not granted any interim relief of stay of
confirmation of appointment or of consideration for sanction of the
appointment and which must have been pending as on 11 th July, 2006, no
case of contempt is made out.
6. It is next contended that the counsel for the respondent on 11 th July,
2006 deliberately wrongly informed that the said Mr. Ranjit Lahiri had
joined the post. In this regard it may be noticed that this Court after granting
the interim order only of making the appointment of Mr. Ranjit Lahiri
subject to the result of the writ petition recorded:
"Mr. Mehra says that according to his information
respondent no.3 has already accepted the appointment and has
joined the post".
7. The counsel for the petitioner/relator has invited attention to the
document dated 11th July, 2006 whereby Dr. A.K. Chanda earlier
functioning as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of HDPEL
relinquished charge on 11th July, 2006 (AN). It is further shown that the
appointment on 3rd July, 2006 was to be with effect from the date of
assumption of charge. It is contended that Mr. Ranjit Lahiri could have
assumed charge not before the earlier incumbent relinquished i.e. not before
afternoon of 11th July, 2006 and as such it was misrepresented before the
Court on 11th July, 2006 that Mr. Ranjit Lahiri had already joined the post.
8. The counsel for the respondents in the writ petition had not made any
categorical statement to the said effect and had stated only "according to his
information". Moreover, the order does not disclose as to at what time the
hearing had taken place, whether in the morning or in the afternoon. Thus,
no case for contempt on this ground also is made out.
9. The counsel for the petitioner/relator has also contended that fresh
applications for post of CMD have been invited, in violation of
instructions/guidelines for sick PSUs as HDPEL is and also in violation of
order dated 11th July, 2006 (supra).
10. This Court having not restrained fresh appointments, the fresh
applications invited cannot be said to be in violation of order of this Court.
As far as violation of guidelines aforesaid is concerned, the same cannot be
subject of contempt petition and it is open to the petitioner to raise the said
challenge in appropriate proceedings.
11. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
12. Liberty is however granted to the petitioner/relator to bring the facts
stated in the contempt petition on the record of the writ petition and to at the
time of hearing of the writ petition urge the same to enable the Court to
appropriately mould the relief if any to be granted. A copy of this order be
also placed on the writ file.
CM No.8799/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 04, 2011
Bs..
