* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16th July, 2010 + CM No.9126/2010 in W.P.(C) No.3874/2010 Y.S. DWIWEDI & ANR. ..... Petitioner Through Nemo. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. S.K. Jain, Respondent No.4 in person. Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. for respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) CM No.9126/2010 in WP (C) No.3874/2010 1. This application has been filed by the respondent no.4 in the writ petition seeking clarification of our order passed on 1st June, 2010 wherein we had recorded as follows:- “Respondent No.4 states that till the hearing before this Court on the stay application and orders by this Court, he shall not press the contempt petition which he has filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal pursuant to the judgment which is impugned before us.” 2. The circumstances in which the submission was recorded is evident from the complete order which was passed by us on 1st June, 2010. For the reason that no paper book had been served on the respondent no.4 who was a caveator, we had deferred the admission hearing in the writ petition. It may be noticed that we were not the CM No.9126/2010 in WP (C) No.3874/2010 Page No.1 of 2 roster bench hearing such cases. For this reason, we had directed the writ petition to be listed for admission before the “Regular Bench” as per roster on the 7th July, 2010. 3. In this background, we had not issued notice in the writ petition or the application of the petitioner seeking interim relief. It is evident therefore that it was only intended that till regular bench takes up the writ petition for hearing for issuance of notice at the admission stage, the respondent no.4 would stay his hands so far as the pressing the contempt petition is concerned. We had certainly not directed disposal of the contempt petition filed by the respondent no.4 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which would require to be considered on its own merits. It was not directed that such petition would be disposed of. 4. In view of the above, this application does not need to detain us any further. The requisite clarifications have been made hereinabove. This application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti. GITA MITTAL, J INDERMEET KAUR, J JULY 16, 2010 aa CM No.9126/2010 in WP (C) No.3874/2010 Page No.2 of 2