IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 229 of 2002 Hari Singh and another. …… Applicants. Versus 1. Shri Ram Kumar, Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Work Division, Nainital and four others. … Opposite-Parties. Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the applicants. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the O.Ps. Date April 16, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. This contempt petition has been moved for punishing the opposite parties for deliberate and willful contempt of the order dated 9-8-1999 passed by the Allahabad High Court, in CMWP No. 33029 of 1999, Hari Singh and another Vs. Superintending Engineer. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Superintending Engineer. The compliance order dated 10-8-1999 has been annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit. It has been specifically stated inter alia in paragraph no. 11 that “the petitioners filed the subsequent writ petition no. 33029 of 99 for the same cause of action by withholding the true facts and secured the order dated 9-8-1999. The said order was passed on the basis of the statement before the Hon’ble Court on behalf of the petitioners and the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for counter affidavit of the respondents of the writ petition. Since the petitioners obtained the order dated 9-8-1999 by misleading the Hon’ble Court, they are liable to be punished for misleading the Hon’ble Court. The instant contempt petition which has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 9-8-1999 obtained by misleading the Hon’ble Court is not at all maintainable 2 and is also sheer abuse of the process of the Court for which also the petitioners are liable to be punished.” Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the compliance order is not a speaking order and the same was rejected and earlier order passed on 19-5-1998. By perusal of the order passed by the Superintending Engineer dated 10-8-1999, it reveals that the grounds for rejection of the representation of the petitioners have been mentioned in paragraph nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the said order and consequently the representation of the petitioners dated 3-10-1998 was rejected. It is pertinent to mention that Hari Singh and two others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35990 of 1998 before the Allahabad High Court, which was decided vide order dated 23-11- 1998, thereby the Superintending Engineer was directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and dispose it of by a reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order along with a copy of the representation dated 3-10-1998. It may be added here that the applicants filed Writ Petition No. 2366 of 1999 before the Allahabad High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 21-01-1999 whereby the order dated 29-12-1998 passed by Executive Engineer Irrigation Division Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar was quashed. It was further directed that “the representation of the petitioners shall, now be placed before the Superintending Engineer for deciding the same by a reasoned order as directed by this court on 23-11-1998. Till the decision of the representation filed by the Petitioners any action in pursuance of the order dated 4-1-98 shall remain suspended.” It is thus evident that the orders passed by the Allahabad High Court have been complied with by the respondents. 3 The contempt petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. However, in case the petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated 10-8-1999 passed by the Superintending Engineer, they may avail appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum. Notices issued to the opposite parties are discharged. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4