IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No.448 of 2011 Decided on: 21.11.2011 Court on its own motion vs. O.C. Sharma. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Court on its own motion. For respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Pursuant to order dated 10.10.2011, Mr. O.C. Sharma, Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, respondent-Contemnor is present. It is submitted that the notice happened to be issued on account of misunderstanding of the communication received from the office of the learned Advocate General. The respondent tenders apology. It is also submitted that an affidavit has been filed in that regard. Para-3 of his reply reads as follows:- “That the replying respondent humbly submits that the letter received from the office of learned Advocate General was mis- construed by the office of the Replying Respondent as if the onus was on the office of Replying Respondent to intimate the Respondents in the writ of the next date. This is a bona fide mistake which has taken place and for this the Replying Respondent tenders unconditional apology and submits before this Hon’ble Court that this mistake shall not be repeated again. The Replying Respondent further humbly submits that he understands the graveness of the - 2 - - 2 - mistake committed and therefore humbly prays for forgiveness and assures this Hon’ble Court that such like mistakes shall not be repeated in future. The mistake was totally bonafide and the replying respondent cannot even dare to think of either over reaching the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court or assuming the same. The mistake occurred on account of Replying Respondent and his office misconstruing that the direction was to office of Replying Respondent to intimate the Respondents in writ petition for the next date rather than understanding that the duty of the Replying Respondent and his office was to file process fee only.” 2. In view of the apology thus tendered, the contempt petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice November 21, 2011 ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), (rana/rkv) Judge.