Cont. Cas(C) 947/2005 S.M. Matloob v. Rakesh Kumar Page 1 Of 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: January 27, 2009 Date of Order: February 08, 2010 + Cont. Cas(C) 947/2005 % 08.02.2010 S.M. Matloob ...Petitioner Through: petitioner in person Versus Rakesh Kumar ...Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Sahijpal, Advocate for ICCR. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of order dated 22nd August, 2005. 2. Vide order dated 22nd August, 2005 this Court had made observations that till next date of hearing respondent shall ensure that no final orders were passed in departmental proceedings. It is contended by petitioner that an order was passed against him after 22nd August 2005 but the date of order was put as 19th August 2005. The order was communicated to him vide letter on 22nd August 2005. He, therefore, contended that there was violation of the order of this Court passed on 22nd August 2005 of not passing a final order. 3. I have gone through the record and documents relied upon by the petitioner and I find that the order dated 19th August 2005 was not a pre-dated order. I, therefore, find no force in this contempt petition. The petition is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs. February 08, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd