SUNIL RAJ R Vs. B SRINIVAS IAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Contumacious action is alleged on the part of the respondents so far as the specific direction given by this Court, as per judgment dated 10.7.2017 in W.A.No.831/2017, to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was never granted before passing Annexure A2 order on 21.2.2018.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/contemnor.

(3.) When the matter came up for consideration on 28.2018, this court directed the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions as to whether Annexure A2 order was passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Government Pleader submitted on the next date of posting, i.e., on 12.4.2018, that as per the instructions, there was no hearing after Annexure A1 judgment. The respondent sought for time to file an affidavit explaining the facts and figures. An affidavit has now been filed from the part of the respondent along with Annexure R1(a). The factual position that no hearing was held after passing the judgment in the Writ Appeal is virtually conceded and the hearing held was on 17.4.2017, that is prior to the date of the aforesaid judgment. It is also stated in the affidavit that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, so far as the particular course stands ordered to be discontinued and as such no fruitful purpose was to be served by affording a further opportunity of hearing. At the same time, going through the contents of Annexure A2, it is evident that while stopping the particular course, permission was granted by the Government to start another course and this is pursuant to the inspection conducted by a team nominated by the Government as reflected from paragraph 2 of Annexure A2 order, which reads as follows: