INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.1 CONTEMPT CASE N0. Q>0| /2010 ^CJ r fArising out of order dated 27-04-2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3527/2007 & order_dated 19-07-2006 passed in W.P. No. 3525/2003) )r S®n'":!!" T^S 3 'i 'ti''^S i'i:i"r' "':'~' ''''' ^ PETITIONER l^ ,C,?^X^A \'LsS-\' •"".ViV^ ''.' \.\-< ^¥s";.^'-^ A'-P' Shri Ram Kishore Sharma, S/o. Late Shri Mahadeo Prasad Sharma, aged about 49 years, Sr. Horticulture Development Officer, In-charge Asstt. Director (Horticulture), Fruits Preservation Training Centre, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS CONTEMNOR 1. Shri D. S. Mishra, Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Horticulture), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^(jlltN/^ \'1'»\ •t&a.i^i»r; ^cz^y 2. Shri Alok Katiyar, Director, Horticulture and Farm Forestiy, above Bank of India, Gauravpath, near Telibandha Railway Crossing, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 215 OFTHECONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Contempt Case(C)N0.301/2010 Petitioner Resoondents Contemnors Shri Ram Kishore Sharma Versus Shri D. S. Mishra and another (Contempt Petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 ofthe Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971) Present: - Shri A. K. Prasad,counsel forthe petitioner. Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, counsel for respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 04-03-2011) This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience oforder dated 27-04-2010 passed bythis Court in W.P.(S)No.3527 of 2007. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner aggrieved by his non-promotion, had earlier filed Vi/rit Petition No.3525 of 2003, which was allowed vide order dated 1 9-07-2006. The order passed by this Court was not respected, which led to filing of contempt petition by the petitioner,the said petition was finally decided vide order dated 29 March, 2007 and liberiiy was reserved to the petitioner to question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed'by the respondents dated 16-01-2007 and 24-03-2007 before the appropriate forum. Thereafter, another petition was filed by the petitioner bearing No.W.P.(S) No.3527 of 2007, during the pendency ofthat petition, the seniority of the petitioner was modified and he was upgraded. Therefore, the petitioner sought liberty of the Court to make representation to the respondent authorities. A statement was made by the learned counsel for the State that if representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided in :t, ,' ""^^&t, '••.. "- • ^ ^'lii ^ ..,^.."'-tv ^ t-' c\ ^ accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It is submitted that thereafter a representation was made on 03-05-2010 to both the respondents. Learned counsel submits that even though the representation was submitted along with the copy of the order to respondentson 03-05-2010, the rhatter remained undecided and by not taking any decision within the time stipulated, the respondents acted contemptuously. He submits that after the contempt petition was filed, the respondents have made communication dated 10-01-2011 (Annexure R-3), which is nothing but'an attempt to wriggle out of the contempt proceedings. He furthef submits that in any case, such a communication is much after the expiry of the period within which the matter was to be decided as per the order of the Court. He further submits that the same in fact is not a dedsion on his representation on its merits and in accordance with law, but merely a communication that he has submitted a representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after benefit of seniority was granted to him, the consequential benefit of promotion has not been extended and in the communication dated 10-01-2011, there is hardly any decision or reason assigned as to why the petitioner has not been found fit for promotion in spite of improvement of his seniority position. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of the Court and are liable to be proceeded against. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset submitted an unconditional apology. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered and after taking into consideration the entire material on record, the chequered history relating to litigation of the petitioner and daim of the petitioner in the light of the representation dated 03-05-2010 and the order of the Court, the rep,resentation 1 9i^ of the petitioner was decided by holding that in the forthcoming D.P.C., the case of the petitioner would be considered. He submits that though, there has been delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner, he submits that the contents of letter dated 10-01-2011 show that important aspects of the matter concerning the case of the petitioner were taken into consideration including the orders passed by this Court earlier. He submits that the decision, therefore, which has been taken, though belatedly, shows that there was no attempt to willfully disobey the order of the Court. He further submits that the delay in taking such decision may be condoned. 4. From the order dated 27-04-2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(S)No.3527 of 2007, it is revealed that the petitioner in view of the subsequent development sought permission of the Court to make representation to the authority for consideration of his case and the learned State counsel made a statement that if such representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The respondents have not disputed that the representation dated 03-05-2010 was made by the petitioner. If that was so, the respondents ought to have taken expeditious steps to honour the solemn ' undertaking given on their behalf by the learned State counsel. However, it appears that though the respondents have taken some decision with reference to petitioner's representation dated 03-05-2010 and the order passed on 27-04- 2010 by this Court in W.P.(S)No.3527 of 2007, there has been delay in taking such a decision. 5. Respect for rule of law is what is expected from the senior officers of the State. Once an undertaking is gjven in the Court by the learned State counsel representing the State, the officers of the State are bound to act in accordance ^ ^ with that undertaking. The respondents have also not specifically stated particular details as to why the matter could not be decided within the time stipulated. It is not the case of the respondents that they had moved an application for extension oftime to decide the matter. 6. Though, there has been delay in deciding the matter, considering that the case of the petitioner had a chequered background and earlier also certain orders were passed, contempt petitions were filed and certain orders were passed from time to time and further considering that the respondent authorities •have taken some decision on petitioner's representation communicated vide order dated 10-01-2011 (Annexure R-3) and also considering that the respondents have sought an unconditional apology, 1 would not proceed further in the matter. However, the time has come for this Court to say a word of caution to the State authorities that caution and care is required to ensure that the orders of the Court are duly complied with in its true spirit as also within the time stipulated. If there is any impression in the mind of the authority that the statement made by their counsel in the Court is not so important for them or that it does not oblige them to comply with the same, it is made clear that such statements made and solemn undertaking given by the State counsel, cannot be set at naught by the officers of the State. The officers of the State would be bound to comply with such undertakings given by their Law Officers in the Court. In the pr.esent case, undertaking was given before the Court by a State counsel. The contempt petition is finally closed and the rule is discharged. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge