$-7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM No. 12422/2011 in CONT.CAS(C) 395/2010 WORKMDENT OF THE HORTICULTURE WING OF THE NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Petitioner Through: Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veena and Mr. Sandeep Anand, Advocates versus PARIMAL RAI & ORS Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, ASC for the respondent/NDMC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER ORDER % 07.09.2012 Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned senior counsel submits that the captioned application for revival of the contempt petition is pivoted on an inaccurate statement made on behalf of the respondents, on 07.02.2011, to the effect that Mr. H.R. Goel, who headed the Committee, which was to deliberate on the recommendations of the Shiv Shankar Committee, was unwell. It is submitted that the Committee headed by Mr. H.R. Goel had actually given its report in July, 2010. On review, the said Committee had reiterated its view in August 2010. Mr. Sengh says that it is thereafter that, a one member Committee was formed to once again look into the Shiv Shankar Committee's CONT.CAS(C) 395/2010 Page 1 of 2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified recommendations, which is, the report dated 16.05.2011, on which, reliance is placed by the respondents. Having regard to the fact that the final report stands generated, in my view, no purpose would be served in continuing with the contempt petition, notwithstanding the statements made, as it is quite possible that there was a communication gap between the respondent and their counsel. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. The petitioner, however, will be at liberty to take recourse to a remedy available in law, to challenge the conclusions and the contents of report dated 16.05.2011. The application is disposed of accordingly. SEPTEMBER 07, 2012 yg RAJIV SHAKDHER, J CONT.CAS(C) 395/2010 Page 2 of 2