RAM ASHISH RAM Vs. SECURITY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was filed by petitioner challenging the order of removal passed, on 23rd October, 1986. The writ petition was filed in this court on 3rd December, 1986 and this court directed to list the petition for admission on 3rd January, 1987 and granted time to Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents to obtain instructions meanwhile. By order of the same day the operation of the order dated 23rd October, 1986 was stayed. the interim order reads as under:

(2.) Sri Negi has cited certain authorities in support of his contentions. Firstly, he has placed reliance on a case Dr. Madan Gopal Gupta v. The Agra University and others., 1974 AIR(All) 39. Paragraph 6 of this case is very relevant which is being reproduced below:

(3.) There is yet another reason for not accepting the submissions of Sri Negi It is apparent from record of the case that on 3rd December, 1986, though a copy of petition was served on the learned counsel for respondents but he was only given time to obtain instructions. This clearly shows that so for interim order was concerned the learned counsel for respondents was not in a position to state such facts, which were disclosed subsequently by means of counter affidavit. It cannot be thus said that the order dated 3-12-86 was passed after bearing the counsel for respondents. Clause 3 of Article 226 of Constitution of India, gives a mandate to decide the application for vacating interim order within period of two weeks from the date it is received in Court or served on the petitioner. The provisions of Clause '3' of Article 226 have an object of avoiding hardship and injustice to such respondents who knocked the doors of Court within reasonable time and pray for hearing of applications for vacating the interim order. It creates an obligation on the part of Court to hear such applications at the earliest and in case, even for any unavoidable reason, the application for vacating stay order is not decided the stay order shall stand vacated, by operation of law. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents cannot be said to have committed any contempt. The facts of the case reported in : 1990 ALJ p. 31 (DB) are different. The material aspects of the present case was neither involved nor discussed in that case. The case is thus distinguishable on facts.