Crl.O.C.P.No.16 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl.O.C.P.No.16 of 2009 Date of decision : 23.02.2010 Court on its own motion ...Petitioner Versus J.S.Dhankar ...Respondent-contemner Present : Sh. K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate, alongwith Sh. J.S.Dhankar, respondent-contemner, in person. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present contempt petition has been initiated on the basis of reference made by Shri Pushpinder Kumar, Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Loharu. It reply, it has been pointed out that the respondent was posted as Assistant Disrict Attorney at Loharu. Number of suits were entertained by the Presiding Officer so as to seek directions i.e all the monkeys in the Municipal area be apprehended and be sent at distance places; seeking direction to remove the water tank near police lines and construct new water tank; construction/maintenance of park; construction of foot path etc. in the park; street lights; ensure grassy lawns, plants and trees therein; seeking appointment of doctor in the civil hospital; and seeking direction to ensure that street light throughout the night remain on in Loharu town. Since the respondent-contemner advised the State Crl.O.C.P.No.16 of 2009 2 Government to challenge the orders passed. The Presiding Officer felt annoyed and has recommended initiation of contempt proceedings. It is also pointed out in the reply that a complaint dated 30.5.2008 was made by the respondent-contemner to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court against the Presiding Officer. A copy of the complaint has been appended with the reply. It is further averred that a departmental enquiry is being conducted by the District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Punjab, in which he has appeared as a witness on 15.12.2008, whereas the reference has been made by the Presiding Officer on 18.12.2008. The respondent-contemner has also pointed out various other instances of misconduct against the Presiding Officer. But we do not feel it necessary to go into the said instances and examine the same in detail. The reply filed shows that, prima-facie, the Presiding Officer has misused his authority by passing orders, which may not fall within his jurisdiction. In view of the said fact, we find no merit in the reference and discharge the rule. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 23.02.2010 (JASWANT SINGH) Vimal JUDGE