P E NARAYANASWAMY Vs. CHAIRMAN AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE COMPLAINANT AVERS THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE EX PANE INTERIM ORDER MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION ON 18TH DECEMBER, 1992, THE SAID INTERIM ORDER RESTRAINS THE RESPONDENTS FROM RELIEVING THE PETITIONER FROM THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT-CORPORATION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS SUBMITS THAT AN APPLICATION IS ALREADY PENDING FOR VACATING THE SAID INTERIM ORDER. IN STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR V MOHD, YAQOOB KHAN AND OTHERS, JUDGMENTS TODAY 1992(5) S.C. 278, THE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT IT WILL BE NOT FAIR TO PROCEED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT FOR THE VIOLATION OF AN EX PANE INTERIM ORDER WITHOUT FINALLY DISPOSING OF THE STAY MATTER ITSELF. RESPONDENTS WILL BE AT A DISADVANTAGE IF THEY ARC CALLED UPON TO MEET THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM IN A CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AL THE RISK OF BEING PUNISHED WITHOUT THEIR SAY AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IS NOT CONSIDERED. THEREFORE, SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE HIGH COURT SHOULD FIRST TAKE UP THE STAY MATTER WITHOUT ANY THREAT TO THE RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION OF BEING PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT AND ONLY AFTER DISPOSING OF THE STAY MATTER THE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE TAKEN UP. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE SUPREME COURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT UNTIL THE STAY MATTER IS FINALLY DECIDED IN THE WRIT PETITION, THE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE TAKEN UP, ON THE GROUND OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE EX PANE INTERIM ORDER AND IT WILL BE A FUIILC EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION IF THE COURT PROCEEDS TO CONSIDER THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE EX PARTE INTERIM ORDER. WE MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT IN MANY OF THE CASES, THE RESPONDENTS WOULD BE NOT IN A POSITION TO POINT OUT THE DIFFICULTY OF COMPLYING WITH THE INTERIM ORDER OR THAT THE INTERIM ORDERS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS FOR ANY REASON AND IN SUCH A SITUATION THE LEARNED JUDGE DEALING WITH THE WRIT PETITION MAY MODIFY THE EARLIER EX PARTE INTERIM ORDER. THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN APPROACHING THIS COURT IN GREAT HASTE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF THE EX PART INTERIM ORDERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO EMPHASISE IN THIS ORDER THAT THIS COURT WOULD NOT HEREAFTER PROCEED TO HEAR SUCH COMPLAINTS UNTIL THE LEARNED JUDGE IS MOVED AGAIN TO CONSIDER THE STAY MATTER AND AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IS MADE AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENTS. THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS ARE ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNED BY 12 WEEKS.