Contempt Petition No. 687 of 2008 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 03.02.2010 Date of Order: 25.03.2010 CCP No.687 of 2008 % 25.03.2010 RAM BHAWAN UPADHYAY ... Petitioner Through: Mr. K.G. Kocher, Advocate Versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sachin Datta & Mr. Manikya Khanna, Advocates for UOI/R-1 Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Advocate for R-2 & 3 with R-3 in person. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. By this contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the directions given by this court in order dated 14.5.2008. 2. A perusal of order dated 14.5.2008 would show that the court had given the following directions: “Under these circumstances, it is directed that the concerned authority must ferret out the truth and seek cooperation from the department of the Contempt Petition No. 687 of 2008 Page 2 of 2 petitioner i.e. Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharat Coking Coal Mines Limited, Dhanbad and pass the detailed / reasoned order which is fathomable. Full opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to place its case before the concerned authority and the documents referred by the petitioner should be considered by the concerned authority.” 3. The respondent contended that after passing of this order, the petitioner was given full opportunity of being heard and to produce all documents, pay statement and other material with him showing that deductions of CMPF contribution for disputed period i.e. from 20.6.1968 to 15.6.1969 was made from his salary and after giving him full opportunity of hearing, an order dated 10.06.2009 was passed by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner Mr. A.N. Bhattacharjee. Copy of the order has been placed on record. 4. A perusal of the order would show that the petitioner was heard and given full opportunity for placing on record all his documents and after hearing him the impugned order was passed in terms of the directions given by the court. I find that there was no violation of the order of the Court. The petition is thereby dismissed. March 25, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. acm