CACP No. 5 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CACP No. 5 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: .03.2010 P.S. Sodhi ....Appellant. Versus Bhupinder and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Appellant is assailing order dated 17.1.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in COCP No.460 of 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that this Court in Civil Revision No.2834 of 2004 passed the following order: - “Resultantly, the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Rupnagar, and the Warrants of Attachment dated 22.12.2003 are set aside. However, as the payment has not been made to the claimants, therefore, the State of Punjab is directed to deposit the entire compensation due to the claimants i.e. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 within a period of two months from CACP No. 5 of 2007 2 the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Revision allowed.” 3. Petitioner served legal notice dated 15.2.2005 calling upon the respondents to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court. No compensation was paid, hence this Court was approached by way of contempt petition. This Court in the impugned order has observed as under: - “In view of the aforementioned two facts, the questions which arises before me is as to whether the allegations made by the petitioners in the concluding part of para No.1 of the affidavit dated 18.2.2006, have been substantiated or not. On perusal of affidavit of respondent No. 2 filed on 4.3.2006, it appears to me that there is no specific denial of the aforementioned allegations which support the inference that respondent No. 2 has been denying the disbursement of enhanced compensation in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Reference Court apparently on extraneous consideration. It is also a fact that proceedings in Award No. 9 stood transferred to respondent No. 2 on 20.5.2004. This is substantiated by letter dated 20.5.2004 and the list attached with the letter, which is placed on record along with Civil Misc. No. 5790-CII of 2006. The order dated 1.11.2004, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 2834 of 2004, was, therefore, required to be complied with by respondent No. 2, which has not been obeyed on account of extraneous considerations. It has also been noticed in the order dated 20.2.2006, while deciding C.O.C.P. CACP No. 5 of 2007 3 No. 548 of 2001, that respondent No. 2 was being dealt with leniently as the order dated 7.11.2001 passed in C.W.P. No. 5143 of 2000, passed by this Court had been complied with. However, warning was administered to respondent No. 2 to be careful in future and if any such contempt petition against him was to be filed in this Court then serious view was required to be taken. However, respondent No. 2 has again violated order passed by this Court on 1.11.2004 with demonstrated culpability. Ordinarily, this Court take a compassionate view in contempt matters by considering numerous factors like rush of work, lack of funds, lack of staff and other host of factors. But in the present case no such leniency could be shown to respondent No. 2 as his conduct is contemptuous. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 is convicted for the contempt of this Court for intentional violation of order dated 1.11.2004, on extraneous consideration.” 4. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 24.1.2007 imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the appellant urged that in Contempt Petition No.4 of 2006, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.1.2008 has directed that remark of learned Single Judge of this Court as observed in order dated 20.2.2006 shall not be put on the personal file of the appellant and the observation “to be careful in future” was withdrawn. Learned counsel for the appellant states that in view of the CACP No. 5 of 2007 4 order passed by the Division Bench in Contempt Petition No.4 of 2006, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that order dated 20.2.2006 was passed in COCP No.548 of 2001. Order dated 20.2.2006 was mentioned in the impugned order by learned Single Judge to show that the appellant is in the habit of not complying with the orders of this Court. Even if, the appellant has been exonerated in earlier contempt petition, does not mean the appellant shall also be exonerated in the present contempt petition. 8. Having perused the record, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has taken lenient view against the appellant. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge .03.2010 sk.