INDRA SAWHNEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application was for extension of time for implementation of the directions by four weeks. The application was filed on 18/3/1993. More thansufficient time has elapsed since then. Therefore, this application does not survive and is dismissed. IAs Nos. 35 and 36

(2.) The judgment of this court was delivered way back on 16/11/1992 More than two years have since elapsed. The direction of this court has not been carried out as yet, even though we had directed by the order of 20/3/19955 issuance of notice to show cause why action in contempt for noncompliance with this court's order should not be taken and made the notice returnable within four weeks. Thereafter, the State government had more than three months' time to comply with the order. Instead of doing so what it seems to have now done is to decide to appoint a Committee headed by a retired Judge of this court.

(3.) The Chief secretary of the State is present in person in response to the contempt notice issued earlier. On further probing it transpires that only the decision taken by the council of Ministers on 8/7/1995 is recorded but as yet no administrative orders appointing the Committee have been issued. Obviously, this is to get over the difficulty likely to be faced at the hearing of the contempt notice today.