ANEES SULTANA Vs. R.B. AGWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE contempt petitions filed under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are by the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 8322/2007 (LA -RES) (five in numbers) and W.P. No. 8323/2007 (LA -RES) (four in numbers) and are listed today before the Court for not fulfilling the deficiencies pointed out by the Registry in the presentation of the contempt petitions. Sri S. S. Sajjanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants requested for a week's time to comply with the short fall and to make the complaints tenable.

(2.) HOWEVER , from the perusal of petition averments and on hearing the submissions made by Sri S. S. Sajjanshetty, learned Counsel for the Complainants and also Sri S. S. Kumman, learned AGA appearing for the respondents, we find these contempt petitions are not any different from a series of contempt petitions, we have come across hitherto where under, persons without bona fides, without any legal basis and without any real cause of action had approached this Court for issue of a Writ of Mandamus on imaginary grievances and even without any legal entitlements and with the learned AGA appearing for the State either conceding or not opposing, the prayer in the writ petition being granted and thereafter writ petitioners coming back before this Court with Contempt Petitions complaining of non -compliance by the respondents of the orders/directions passed in the writ petition and therefore have rendered themselves for action in contempt jurisdiction.

(3.) THE Registry has also overlooked that there should have been as many contempt petitions as there are complainants. Each complainant was a different writ petitioner even in the writ petition and even as per the submission of Sri S. S. Sajjanshetty, learned Counsel for the Complainants, separate Court fee had been paid on the writ petitions and even on these complaints separate Court fee has been paid. Therefore, the Registry is directed to assign commensurate separate numbers.