Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Hidayat Ali vs Mr. Saleem Kabra & Ors on 29 October, 2021
Sr. No.01
Advance List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CCP(S) No.386/2020
Hidayat Ali ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. B. A. Misri, Advocate.
Vs.
Mr. Saleem Kabra & Ors. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
29.10.2021
1) Petitioner is complaining about non-implementation of
judgment and order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Writ Court in
SWP No.2171/2008. The operative portion of the said judgment and
order reads as under:
"For the stated facts and law, petition succeeds,
as such, is allowed. The order impugned
providing that period of absence shall be treated
as on leave without pay is set aside. The period
in terms of Regulation 108-B of J&K CSR shall
be treated as on duty. Respondent-authority shall
workout the consequential benefits as shall be
due to the petitioner, same shall be paid to him
with promptitude."
2) It appears that previously petitioner had filed a contempt
petition bearing CPSW No.897/2017 seeking implementation of the
MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT
2021.11.01 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
aforesaid judgment and order. The said petition was disposed of vide
order dated 11.09.2020 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the
present incumbents with a copy of the order that was subject matter
of the contempt petition, for seeking implementation of the same. It
was further observed that if petitioner feels dissatisfied as regards
implementation of directions of the Court, he shall be at liberty to file
appropriate proceedings.
3) Since the respondents did not implement the judgment of the
Writ Court, the petitioner was constrained to knock the doors of this
Court once again by filing instant contempt petition.
4) Statement of facts on behalf of respondents stands filed. In the
statement of facts respondents have submitted that the respondent
No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, in pursuance of the
judgment of the Writ Court has initiated the process of
implementation of the aforesaid judgment and order. It has been
submitted that a reminder has also been sent by respondent No.3 to
the Police Headquarter in terms of communication dated 19.12.2019.
Several other communications are also stated to have been exchanged
between respondent No.3 and Police Headquarter, J&K, on the issue
but till date no directions are stated to have been received from the
Police Headquarter, J&K.
5) Besides giving the above factual aspects, the respondent No.5
has, in his statement of facts, tried to pick holes in the contempt
MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT
2021.11.01 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
petition and the conduct of the petitioner by stating that there is some
spelling mistake in the name of respondent No.1 i.e., Principal
Secretary to Home Department and that the designation of respondent
No.3 has not been correctly shown. Respondent No.3 has gone on to
lay blame with regard to non-implementation of the judgment of the
Writ Court upon petitioner himself by stating that he did not choose
to approach the respondents in terms of order dated 11.09.2020 passed
in the earlier contempt petition.
6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the
material on record.
7) A perusal of the record and the minutes of the proceedings
reveals that the approach adopted by the respondents in this case,
prima facie, appears to be defiant and contumacious. The petitioner
has been made to run from pillar to post for implementation of Writ
Court judgment passed on 10.08.2017. Vide the aforesaid judgment
the respondents have not been asked to shower fortunes upon the
petitioner but they have only been asked to treat the petitioner's
period of absence on duty and work out the consequential benefits and
pay the same to the petitioner. If implementation of such an order
which does not involve any huge financial implication would take
more than four years, there there is either something terribly wrong
with the functioning of offices of the respondents or the incumbents of
these offices have no regard for the rule of law and the orders of the
Court.
MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT
2021.11.01 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
8) The record shows that so far the matter regarding
implementation of the order of Writ Court has remained confined to
offices of respondents No.2 and 3 only. Therefore, for the present, it
is directed that a show cause notice be issued to the respondents No.2
and 3 asking them to show cause as to why rule should not be framed
against them and why they should not be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
9) List again on 16th of November, 2021.
10) A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG,
for information.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
29.10.2021
"Bhat Altaf, PS"
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT
2021.11.01 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
