Delhi High Court
Sanjiv Chaturvedi vs Dr M C Misra on 14 September, 2016
$~27.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1040/2016
% Judgment dated 14 th September, 2016
SANJIV CHATURVEDI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv.
versus
DR M C MISRA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.R.K. Gupta and Mr.M.K. Singh,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 33436/2016
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 1040/2016
3. Present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
12 and 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful
disobedience of the undertaking given to Court on 17.3.2016 in
W.P.(C)1888/2016 and also alleging wilful disobedience of the
directions contained in the order dated 12.5.2016 passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in Cont.Cas(C) 564/2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed
OA No.2175/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') wherein on 3.2.2016 the
CONT.CAS(C ) 1040/2016 Page 1 of 5
Tribunal had made certain observations/adverse comments against the
petitioner. Counsel further submits that aggrieved by the order dated
3.2.2016 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)
1888/2016, wherein notice was issued on 17.3.2016. Counsel further
submits that on the same date, counsel for the respondent, on
instructions, had made a statement that the respondents would not take
any action on the basis of the averments/observations made in the
impugned judgment. Order dated 17.3.2016 reads as under:
"+ W.P.(C) 1888/2016
SANJIV CHATURVEDI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr.
Advocate with Ms. Vinika Kiho,
Advocate along with petitioner in
person.
versus
UOI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. S.S. Rai, Advocate for Mr.
Vikas Mahajan, CGSC for UOI. Mr.
Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for AIIMS.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 17.03.2016
Caveat No. 205/2016
As the counsel for the respondent No. 3 has entered appearance,
the caveat stands discharged.
CM No. 8078/2016
Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No. 1888/2016 & CM No. 8077/2016
Issue notice returnable on 12th May, 2016.
Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent No. 3. Mr. S.S. Rai, Advocate, who appears for Mr.
Vikas Mahajan, Central Government Standing Counsel, accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
We believe and perceive that counter affidavit is required to be
filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Counter affidavit will be
filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, within three
weeks thereafter.
Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, on instructions, states that till
the next date of hearing, they will not be taking any action on the
basis of averments/observations made in the impugned judgment.
The statement is taken on record."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner
was forced to file Cont.Cas(C) 564/2016, as the respondent in its reply
to the another OA bearing No. 1887/2015 filed by the petitioner, had
relied upon the observations made by the Tribunal on 3.2.2016 in OA
No.2175/2015. Counsel contends that the High Court, vide its order
dated 12.5.2016, was forced to observe in Cont.Cas(C) 564/2016 that
the Tribunal would decide the matter unaffected by the observations
made by the Tribunal in the order dated 3.2.2016 in OA No.2175/2015.
The order dated 12.5.2016 reads as under:
"O R D E R
% 12.05.2016
CM No.18124/2016
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed off
Cont. Cas. No.564/2016
We have heard the learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. We would
like to dispose of the present contempt petition by directing that
the proceedings pending before the Tribunal will be disposed of,
without being influenced by any findings or observations made in
the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2016 in OA
No.2175/2015. This would mean that the respondents would be
entitled to rely upon the factual assertions and equally open to
the petitioner to contest the same on merit or other grounds. The
findings recorded in the impugned order dated 3rd February,
2015 are the subject-matter of challenge before the High Court
in WP(C) No.1888/2016 and the said findings have not attained
finality. We have recorded the statement of the learned counsel
for the respondents to the effect that they will not take action on
the basis of the averments/observations in the impugned order
dated 3rd February, 2016 passed in OA No.2175/2015.
With the aforesaid observations, the present contempt
petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of
the Court Master."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter the
petitioner made a representation to the respondent seeking extension of
his period of deputation. Counsel contends that the complaint of the
petitioner is that the respondent, while relying on the observations
made by the Tribunal in OA No.2175/2015, has rejected the
representation of the petitioner. Counsel also contends that in view of
the statement made by the counsel for the respondents in W.P.(C)
1888/2016, the observations made by the Tribunal inOA No.2175/2015
could not have been relied upon by the respondents in rejecting the
representation.
7. Per contra, Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that
the petitioner has incorrectly read the order dated 17.3.2016 passed in
W.P.(C)1888/2016, as the statement so made was only that they would
not take any action against the petitioner on the basis of
averments/observations made in the impugned judgment. Counsel
further submits that in order to effectively deal with the representation
of the petitioner, the observations made by the Tribunal were relied
upon and in case the observations of the Tribunal were not relied upon,
the petitioner would have complained that his representation has been
rejected without a reasoned order.
8. Heard counsel for the parties. Having regard to the submissions made
and on reading of the order dated 17.3.2016 containing the statement of
the counsel for the respondent, we find that the petitioner has not been
able to make out a case of wilful disobedience of the order dated
17.3.2016.
9. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits he would move an
application seeking stay of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal
in the aforestated writ petition, which is listed on 26.10.2011.
10. Accordingly, no grounds are made out to initiate contempt proceedings
against the respondent. Contempt petition stands dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 msr
