BHARTI PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. AJAY KUMAR MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Petitioner has filed this contempt petition claiming that the respondent has deliberately and willfully issued a recovery notice, despite stay of the operation of the order dated 5.3.2002. petitioner contends that respondent reserved orders in haste on 7.2.2001, without a proper opportunity to petitioner. Respondent passed the impugned order dated 5.3.2001, which in fact was despatched only on 21.3.2001.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr.Ashok Chabra submits that there has been willful disobedience of the orders passed by this court. A perusal of the order sheet after the closure of the hearing on 7.2.2001 shows the under mentioned endorsement by the P.A. of respondent:- "Final order sent to establishment and speed post/registered post." This endorsement Is dated 5.3.2001. He submits that the order was in fact despatched on 21.3.2001. Case of the petitioner is that the respondents antedated the order dated 5.3.2001, after the petitioner had filed a writ petition. Advance copy had been served on the respondents and the notice and stay order dated 14.3.2001 had been passed. Mr.Chabra submits that It is also significant that no representative of the respondent appeared, even though the advance copy had been served prior to 12.3.2001. With a view to supplement the submission that it was a design to antedate the order and to over reach the stay order passed on 14.3.2001 that two of the letters dated 14.2.2001 and 5.3.2001 submitted by the petitioner seeking to lead evidence are missing from the respondent's file, as is apparent from the inspection carried out.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that a further circumstance which lends support to the petitioner's case is that the respondent issued a recovery certificate despite the order dated 14.3.2001, directing that no final order be passed. Vide orders dated 28.3.2001, order dated 5.3.2001, passed by the respondent was stayed. Respondents in reply has taken a position that the recovery certificate, mentioned that there was a court stay. Counsel has shown in court the copy of the recovery certificate received by the petitioner, which does not carry any endorsement of a court stay. Mr.Chabra submits that an idle plea has been taken by the respondents to somehow explain their disobedience of the orders of the Court. To sum up, counsel for the petitioner states that there are inherent contradictions in the conduct of the respondents viza viz the natural course of events, which should have followed. Some of the positions are not easily reconcilable Counsel for the petitioner firstly submits that endorsement by PA of respondent that the order had been sent by speed post was not understandable, when it was actually despatched on 21.3.2001. Secondly the petitioner's letters dated 14.2.2001 and 5.3.2001 were missing from file. Thirdly, the non-appearance of the respondents despite advance copies being served with a view to somehow pass the antedated order . Lastly the issuance of the recovery certificate. The explanation of having mentioned that there was a court stay on the Recovery Certificate sent to the Revenue Officer , without mentioning the same on the copy of the recovery certificate sent to the petitioner .