Rajender Singh & Ors. vs . Jagdish Chander & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 5422 HP

Rajender Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Chander & ors.

.

COPC No 179 of 2021

08.07.2022 Present: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Narinder Guleria, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.

On 22.06.2022, respondent No.3, Narender Chauhan,

Executive Engineer came present and apprised this court that the

matter has been taken up with the government and as and when

approval is given, needful in terms of judgment alleged to be

violated shall be done. On the basis of aforesaid statement, this

court reluctantly granted further two weeks' time to the respondents

to comply with the judgment alleged to have been violated however,

made it clear in order dated 22.6.2022 that in case judgment in

question is not implemented on or before the next date of hearing,

respondents shall remain present in the court.

2. Astonishingly, neither the judgment alleged to have

been violated has been implemented, as was undertaken before

this Court on 22.6.2022 by respondent No.3, nor respondent No.1

has bothered to come present in Court. Though respondent Nos.2

and 3 have come present, but they state that decision with regard

to implementation of judgment alleged to have been violated, is to

be taken by respondent No.1, who has not been able to come

present on account of his official tour to the State of Rajasthan.

3. During proceedings of the case, learned Additional

Advocate General has placed on record an application filed under

Section 151 CPC seeking therein exemption of respondent No.1

from personal appearance. Aforesaid application is taken on

.

record. Registry is directed to register the same.

4. It has been averred in the aforesaid application that

respondent No.1 is unable to appear before this Court on account

of his having proceeded on tour to Jaipur in connection with some

official work and he would be returning from the tour after

11.7.2022. Mode and manner, in which the application for

exemption has been filed, smacks of arrogance of person holding

high office of Additional Chief Secretary (Public Works). High-

handedness and callous attitude of officer concerned can be well

gauzed from the fact that the application seeking therein exemption

from personal appearance has not been filed under the affidavit of

the person concerned, rather the same has been filed under the

affidavit of Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department.

Application for exemption, if any, is required to be filed by the

person, who is under obligation to come present before the Court

on account of court order. Apart from above, there is no whisper, if

any with regard to steps, if any, taken by the officer concerned with

regard to implementation of the judgment alleged to have been

violated and schedule of official tour, if any, prepared before

passing of the order dated 22.6.2022, whereby respondent No.1

was directed to come present in the court in the event of non-

implementation of the order alleged to have been violated.

5. Having regard to the seriousness of the matter, this

Court directed learned Additional Advocate General to ensure

presence of the officer concerned in the post-lunch session.

Interestingly, this court was informed in the post-lunch session that

the officer has proceeded on tour today itself, but yet he did not find

.

it appropriate to come present before this Court in morning session

to explain that why judgment alleged to have been violated, is not

being implemented, rather he deemed it fit to send Law Officer of

the Department with the application for exemption. Needless to say

order calling upon respondent No.1 to come present in the Court for

today's date was passed on 22.6.2022, i.e. fifteen days' back, but

during last fifteen days, respondent No.1, neither found time to

comply with the directions contained in the judgment alleged to

have been violated nor he deemed it proper to file an application in

advance explaining therein reasons for delay in implementation of

the judgment alleged to have been violated and his absence, if any,

on the given date i.e. today (8.7.2022). Application for extension of

time, has been filed during the proceedings of the case today,

which is also not under the signatures of respondent No.1. On the

one hand, it is averred in the application that respondent No.1 has

proceeded on tour to Jaipur in connection with official work and on

the other hand, time has been sought to examine the matter for

complying with the directions passed by this Court on 22.6.2022.

6. Having taken note of aforesaid indifferent attitude of

respondent No.1, this court has no hesitation to conclude that

officer concerned has no respect of law and he lacks commitment

to uphold the majesty of law.

7. Prima facie, this Court is convinced that respondent

No.1 has aggravated the contempt and as such, requires to be

dealt with in accordance with law, but before passing further orders,

this court on the vehement request having been made by learned

Additional Advocate General, reluctantly adjourns the matter for

.

14.7.2022 enabling the respondents to comply with the judgment

alleged to have been violated, failing which, this court would be

constrained to pass appropriate orders under Contempt of Courts

Act. Needless to say, on the next date of hearing, respondent No.1

shall remain present in the court to explain his position.

    8th July, 2022
                               to             (Sandeep Sharma)
                                                 Judge

     (reena)