ADVANI OILKAR LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 7.3.2003 Hon'ble A.K. Sikri, J. had remitted the petitioner's representations back to the Standing Committee for the passing of Speaking Orders within three months. This Contempt Petition was filed in July, 2003 since the compliance with the order dated 3.3.2003 had not been made. On 19.9.2003 I had noted that although the respondent had been served, she had not cared to be represented. She was, therefore, directed to be present in person on 29.10.2003. CM 445/2003 was thereafter filed by the respondent for recalling the order dated 19.9.2003 and for exempting the personal presence of the respondent. The prayers were allowed on 17.10.2003.

(2.) In this very application the position mat was adopted by the respondent was that the petitioner's letter dated 2.5.2003 had not been received. This state has become the focus of contention. On the previous hearing the following order was passed:

(3.) On the basis of a fresh affidavit filed by Ms. Satwant Reddy, Mr. Maninder Singh has contended that by over sight it had not been mentioned in the letter dated 8.10.2003 that the letter dated 2.5.2003 has been received for the first time along with the Notice of the Contempt Petition. The averments contained in the affidavit dated 14.10.2003 are reiterated as correct. The explanation offered by the respondent cannot be rejected outright and is certainly, at least, a plausible one. I, therefore, give the benefit of doubt to the respondent in this respect and do not consider it appropriate to continue with further proceedings either for contempt or for perjury. It is expected that senior officers of the Government shall be more careful about statements contained in their affidavits.