COCP No. 1580 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 1580 of 2009 Date of decision: August 31, 2009 Alliance Education Society ..Petitioner Versus National Council of Teacher Education and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner ,,, Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.)Oral) The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that vide judgment dated 8.7.2009 passed in CWP No.9908 of 2009, this court has directed the respondent No.2 to reconsider his application for grant of recognition in the light of the sale deed Annexure P-13 and representation Annexure P-7 attached with the aforesaid writ petition and the respondents were directed to examine the case of the petitioner and pass final order within a period of four weeks from the date the fresh representation was received. This is the further case of the petitioner that he submitted his representation dated 11.7.2009 attached as Annexure P-2 with this petition in compliance of the orders dated 8.7.2009. However, till date no order has been passed by respondent No.2 reconsidering the application for grant of recommendation to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that though respondent No.1 has passed an order dated 7.8.2009 yet he has not taken into consideration the orders passed by this court and the documents produced by him and therefore, they are guilty of committing Contempt of this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the COCP No. 1580 of 2009 2 record of this contempt petition. I have also perused the contents of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in this court. A perusal of the order Annexure P-5 attached with the contempt petition passed by respondent No.1 is an order on the appeal of the petitioner which was filed on 18.5.2009 against the order dated 12.5.2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur rejecting his application against which the petitioner had filed CWP No.9908 of 2009 before this Court. The perusal of the contents of the writ petition shows that though in para No.14 of the writ petition, it was mentioned by the petitioner that he filed a statutory appeal against the order dated 12.5.2009. However, in para No.23 of the writ petition, it was specifically stated that no other alternative remedy in the form of representation or appeal is available to the petitioner. Thus, a false averment was made by the petitioner while invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. I am of the view that this amount to suppression of true facts from the court while obtaining such orders. According to the averments made in this petition, the petitioner submitted his representation to respondent No.1 through registered post. However, there is no documentary evidence to show that the aforesaid representation was received by respondent No.1. Moreover, the petitioner was duly represented before respondent No.1 through his lawyer. However,, there is nothing on record to suggest that during the course of hearing which took place on 23.7.2009 before respondent No. 1, the representative of the petitioner brought the order dated 8.7.2009 to the knowledge of respondent No.1. There is no such averment in the contempt petition that the order dated 8.7.2009 passed by this court was brought to the knowledge of respondent No.1 during the course of aforesaid hearing of the appeal of the petitioner. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be held that respondents were in the knowledge of the orders dated 8.7.2009 passed by this court and they have willfully disobeyed the same. Thus I am not inclined to take cognizance of the present petition. Dismissed with costs Rs. 25000/-. COCP No. 1580 of 2009 3 However, the petitioner shall be entitled to challenge the order Annexure P-5 dated 7.8.2009 in accordance with law. August 31, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE