1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 683 of 2008 UNION OF INDIA & ORS V/S CENTRAL ADMI. TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR &ORS Mr. MANOJ BHANDARI, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 30.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order Annexure-1. Vide Annexure-1 the contempt petition has been deemed to be treated as Misc. Application in O.A. No. 76/2003, and a direction was given to the competent authority to give effect to the order of the Tribunal dt. 4.1.2007, within further two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order Annexure-1 as well as the earlier order dt. 4.1.2007. It has been further clarified, that in case of failure to comply with the order of the Tribunal, it shall be treated as gross negligence, on the part of the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is, that the order has been passed without giving notice to the petitioner, 2 and that no order is required to be passed in compliance of the order dt. 4.1.2007. So far passing of the order in compliance of the order dt. 4.1.2007 is concerned, a look at the order dt. 4.1.2007, which has been produced as Annexure-2, shows that therein the learned counsel for the respondent had stated at the Bar, that in view of the judgment given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India, reported in (2006) 8 SCC-212, the respondents will issue a fresh order, in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Then, a review petition was filed, contending that no such concession was made, and that review petition has been disposed of vide order Annexure-3, dt. 7.8.2007. A look at later part of para 1 of this order Annexure-3 shows that it recites as under:- “..The learned counsel for the review applicants prays that his version may be treated as his submission and not as a statement made across the Bar. He still submits and maintains that fresh orders in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.Nagraj (supra) would be issued in this case.” It is in this background, that para-5 of the judgment of Annexure-2 was modified, and a direction was purportedly given by the learned Tribunal to issue fresh order in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in M. Nagraj's case. May be that in contempt proceedings, 3 without issuing notice to the petitioners, this type of direction may not be issued, or may be that it could not be issued either, but then the fact remains, that the attempt on the part of the petitioner, as appears to be by the submission made is, that no order is required to be passed in the light of the observations made in M. Nagraj's case, appears to be not sustainable as, as noticed above, even in review petition also, it was submitted, that fresh order will be passed, and a look at Annexure-2 shows, that it is realising that respondent agreed to pass fresh order, that O.A. was dismissed as infructuous. Thus it appears, that on the one hand the respondents projected to be prepared to pass a fresh order, and got O.A. dismissed as infructuous, and now they want to back out from that stand. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in our writ jurisdiction, and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However it is clarified, that the last sentence of order Annexure-1, directing, that omission on the part of the petitioner to comply with the order shall be treated as gross negligence, shall stand deleted. However, the learned Tribunal will be free to proceed against the concerned person, if the orders Annexure-2 and 3 are not complied with. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA)J. /Sushil/