IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 176 of 2008 Committee of Management … Petitioner Vs Smt. Pushpa Manas … Respondent Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Heard Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. This Court on 18.06.2008 passed the following order in Writ Petition No. 734 of 2008, Committee of Management Vs Director, School Education & others:- “In the facts and circumstances of the case it is provided that the Director may proceed with the enquiry without being influenced by the report of the District Education Officer dated 15.02.2008 and the report of the District Education Officer be treated as information for the purposes of sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act.” 3. This Court further on 26.09.2008 passed the following order:- “Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.09.2008, passed by respondent No. 1, is hereby quashed whereby Authorised Controller was appointed in Devta Bhure Sah Trust, Mata Shakumbari Devi Junior High 2 School, Manglore, District Haridwar, leaving it open to the authority concerned to pass fresh orders after complying the provision of law, as mentioned above.” 4. The respondent has filed the response. In paragraph – 4 of the response, it has been stated that after giving opportunity of hearing the fresh recommendation was sent to the Government and the Government after perusing the recommendation ordered for appointment of the Authorised Controller. The paragraph No. – 4 of the response reads as under:- “That after the said interim order of this Hon’ble Court, passed in Writ Petition No. 734 (M/S) of 2008, Committee of Management Vs Director of School Education & others, the enquiry was conducted without influenced by the enquiry report dated 15.02.2008 and after giving opportunity of hearing the fresh recommendation dated 17.07.2008 was sent to the Government and after perusing the recommendation the Government ordered for the appointment of Authorised Controller vide order dated 03.09.2008.” 5. In view of the above, I do not find any force in the contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. 6. Notice issued against the respondent is hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.12.2008 ASWAL