SUKHDEV CHAND PAUL Vs. S K SHARIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . An order was made by this court in (C.W. 660/1990) on 2.3.1990 wherein it was recorded that the learned counsel for the respondent submitted thai the representation of the petitioner which was pending seeking renewal of the permit was being looked into and the application shall be disposed of within 2 months. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition on the ground that this undertaking has not been fulfilled. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that this order for compliance was extended by an order of this court dated 16.7.1991. I assume that the order was made by the authority concerned within the time granted by the court.

(2.) . In the counter affidavit it is stated that an order was made on 25.2.1991 (Ann. R-2). The counter affidavit also produces a letter dated 4.2.1991 (Ann. R-l). This letter informed that he had not been found to meet the prescribed conditions of allotment" and therefore the petitioner was requested to see the Secretary, State Transport Authority for personal hearing on 13.2.1991 at 10.30 A.M. The second letter (Ann. R-2) states that the petitioner had been requested to appear before the Secretary for personal hearing on 13.2.1991 but he failed to do so and that since the petitioner was not found "to meet the prescribed condition for allotment of permit" the petitioner's case has been rejected on merits.

(3.) . The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on 16.2.1991 a submission had been made on behalf of the respondent that the application of the petitioner was still pending consideration and there is no reference that the matter would be taken up by the Authority on 13.2.1991 and that both the letters (Anne. R-l and R-2) were subsequently created and that the petitioner was not served with first letter (Ann. R-l). The petitioner states that he received only the second letter (Ann. R-2) the date of which, I thought to be 25.2.1991, but the figure relating to the month is not quite clear. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client received this letter in July, 1991.