Kriyad Yogesh Bhankharia vs Air Chief Marshal Birender Singh ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 771 Del

#2

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Judgment delivered on: 6th February, 2019

CONT.CAS.(CRL) 675/2018 & CM APPL. No. 4085/2019 (under
Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner)
KRIYAD YOGESH BHANKHARIA                                             ..... Petitioner



                                     versus



AIR CHIEF MARSHAL BIRENDER SINGH DHANOA. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Md. Azam Ansari, Advocate along with petitioner in
                     person.

For the Respondent    :Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC along with Wing
                      Commander Basson for respondent No. 1/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

                                JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Sections 10, 11 & 12, read with Section

2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as well as, Article 215 of the

Constitution of India, prays as follows:-

"(a) Summon the contemnor before this Hon'ble Court and after conviction, punish him appropriately for Contempt of Court committed by him of orders dated 13.07.2018 and 17.08.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1892/2018.

(b) Direct the respondent not to cancel his sanctioned leave which is up to 07th October, 2018, as is now anticipated in view of attending facts and circumstances of the case/developments.

(C ) Pass any such order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of case and for justice."

2. In sum and substance, the petitioner before us seeks initiation of

contempt of court action against the Chief of Air Staff, predicated on the

argument that the latter violated the directions issued by this Court vide

order dated 13th July, 2018.

3. It would be germane and profitable to extract the directions in the

above-stated order so as to appreciate the thrust of the petitioner's

argument and the same is extracted as follows:-

"Till further orders, no action regarding the present medical category of the petitioner will be taken without prior intimation to the Court."

4. In the backdrop of the above-stated directions, it is vigorously

urged on behalf of the petitioner that the official respondent has willfully

attempted to alter the petitioner's medical category contrary to and in

violation of the letter and spirit of the said directions.

5. However, a perusal of this Court's order dated the 7th September,

2018, leaves no manner of doubt that the submission made on behalf of

the petitioner does not hold water and is untenable.

6. In this behalf, it is observed that, as recorded in the said order dated

7th September, 2018, the petitioner's medical category remains unchanged

till date. It is further observed that the official respondent has

categorically stated that the petitioner can report to his unit for the

discharge of his duties.

7. In our view, the present proceeding is an attempt by the petitioner

to circumvent any further participation by him in the annual medical

examination, during the continuance of his service in the disciplined

force. The law does not permit the grant of a blanket injunction,

restraining the official respondent from requiring the petitioner to present

himself for medical examination, if so warranted, in accordance with law.

8. We are, therefore, of the considered view that, the allegation of the

petitioner against the Chief of Air Staff in relation to the act of

commission alleged to have been committed by the latter does not

disclose any violation of the above-stated directions issued by this Court,

leave alone a willful and deliberate attempt so to do.

9. The present petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings

against the official respondent, is therefore, devoid of any merit and is

accordingly dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of.

10. Needless to state that, the petitioner would be at liberty to initiate

appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, if he is aggrieved by

any action contemplated on behalf of the official respondent, before an

appropriate forum.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

REKHA PALLI (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 06, 2019/RS