T N GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri B. L. Das, Mining Officer, to whom notice was issued to show cause why proceeding to punish him for contempt of Court, on 13th January, 1998, be not initiated is present in Court alongwith his counsel Mr. Raju Ramachandran, senior Advocate. Reply has not been filed till date. Mr. Raju Ramachandran submits that there has been some confusion in the matter of filing the reply because of the date given by the Registry of this Court in the formal notice issued to Shri BL Das. Though we are of the opinion that since Shri BL Das was present in Court when notice was given in him and, therefore, there was no scope for any confusion, but in the interest of Justice, we accede to the request of Mr. Raju Ramachandran and grant one week further time to Shri Das to file his reply.

(2.) We request Mr. H. N. Salve, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. U. U. Lalit to assist the Court in the contempt proceedings against Shri Das. The contempt proceedings shall be listed separately with a separate number from the Registry.

(3.) List the contempt case after three weeks.