GANESH SAW MILL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two contempt petitions filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India are said to be having their origin in the orders dated 25.5.2009 passed in W.P.Nos. 81449/09 and 81450/09 respectively wherein this Court has, while allowing the writ petitions for issue of a writ of mandamus, directed as under: In W.P.81449/09: Now, the learned Government Advocate has made a submission before this Court that the application filed by the petitioner has been already forwarded to the Central Empowerment Committee for necessary permission. Under such circumstances, the only order that is required to be passed is to ? direct the respondent/authorities including the Central Empowerment Committee to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent/authorities are directed to send necessary communication to the Central Empowerment Committee enclosing the copy of this order. Petitioner is also at liberty to submit necessary reminders to the Central Empowerment Committee by enclosing the copy of this order to consider and dispose of the application filed by him. I am sure that the Central Empowerment Committee, having due regard to the nature of the dispute raised and the direction already issued by this Court as back as on 10.01.2005 directing the authorities to consider the application filed by the petitioner on 28.9.2004 considering the same as a fresh application submitted by the petitioner for grant of licence, will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within the time stipulated herein above. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. In W.P.81450/09: In the light of the above, it is necessary to issue appropriate direction to the authorities to consider the application expeditiously and take necessary steps for disposal of the application filed by the petitioner seeking grant of licence in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in W.P.49707/04 disposed of on 6.1.2005. I am sure that the Central Empowerment Committee will consider the application as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents-State and its authorities are directed to pursue the matter before the Central Empowerment Committee so that it can pass necessary orders within the time frame prescribed. The petitioner is also at liberty to make separate representation to the Central Empowerment Committee so that it can pass necessary orders within the time frame prescribed. The petitioner is also at liberty to make separate representation to the Central Empowerment Committee by enclosing the copy of this order and the order dated 6.1.2005 passed in W.P.49707/04 so as to enable the Central Empowerment Committee to pass appropriate orders expeditiously. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Complaining that the respondent/accused persons have not obeyed the directions, the present contempt petitions are filed praying for initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents 1 to 6 for disobedience of the order dated 25.5.2009 and to inflict on them suitable punishment.

(2.) WE find that while in the writ petition, there were only 5 respondents, who are the officers of the Forest Department, in the contempt petitions, the Member Secretary, Central Empowerment Committee, Room No.106, Paryavaran Bhavan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003, is now arrayed as 6th respondent/accused.

(3.) IN the present two cases, on a reading of the orders passed by the learned single Judge in the two writ petitions, we find that even as per the writ petitioners, respondents 1 to 5, i.e. State of Karnataka and its officers have in fact performed all their duties as is required in law and that precisely was the submission of the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate representing the State. But very strangely a writ of mandamus is issued against the respondents who had already performed their duty and also against an authority who is not a party to the writ proceedings.