LT COL ASHOK KUMAR Vs. NARESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On May 19, 1992 this Court notices that innumerable adjournments had been occasioned in this case, and ordered that the matter be listed during the first week of July for fixing the date for hearing. The matter was listed on July, 7, 1992, but adjourned to the next day again due to non-availability of counsel. On July 9, 1992 the Court passed an order that the matter should be listed for hearing on July, 24, 1992 and that the opposite parties shall be present on the day of hearing. The matter was listed for July, 24, 1992. The opposite parties were not present on that date. The proceedings record that learned Counsel for the parties submitted that the date had escaped their notice, and, they did not intimate their respective clients of the date of hearing. The submissions of learned Counsel made in concert may be a coincidence too good to be granted as taken, but as counsel had made and taken upon themselves this matter of date avoidance, the Court accepted their responsibility. The case was adjourned and fixed for hearing on the date sought and as indicated to the Court i. e. August 18, 1992. This Court is not going into the question of counsel of all the parties forgetting to intimate the date to their clients, co-incidences happen and this may be one of them. The only aspect which is relevant is that they sought an adjournment and to a date indicated by them. The date was 18 August, i. e. today. The opposite party No. 2. Brigadier P. K. Gupta (retired), is present. The opposite party No. 1, Mr. Naresh Chandra, is not present.

(2.) Yesterday, an application was filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 did not file his personal affidavit supporting the facts. These are contempt proceedings. The affidavit is of one Mr. V. N. Mandloi describing himself as " the officer incharge Legal Cell, Head Quarter Allahabad, Sub Area and pairopkar of opposite party No. 1". The submission in the application is that the opposite party No. 1 after his superannuation from the post of Cabinet Secretary, Government of India has been appointed as Senior Advisor to Prime Minister of India on Ayodhya matters and there has been a lot of activity in relation to Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. The application states that this is a sensitive issue which affects the entire country and even the Arabian countrfes and the situation warrants a constant watch and as Senior Advisor he has to remain in touch with different parts of the country and with different leaders belonging to different religions. The application further mentions that the situation being sensitive meetings, and parleys are required to take place at Delhi and thus, the applicant desires that his personal presence on August, 1992 be exempted. The application also states that the learned Attorney General shall also appear in this case on behalf of the applicant and as he cannot appear on the date fixed, the matter be adjourned to some other date. The prayer mentions that the personal presence of the applicant be exempted and the case be adjourned to some other date to enable the learned Attorney General to appear in this case. An objection to the application seeking adjournment to the hearing and exemption from being present at it, has also been filed by the Petitioner.

(3.) In so far as the learned Attorney General of India is concerned, this Court will welcome his valued addrees at the bar of this Court, but this is a matter for issues on merits. The merits are not engaging the attention of the Court on the applications under consideration. Adjournment and exemption both were taken for granted. On submission, formal orders are being sought on (a) adjournment and (b) exemption from appearing before the Court on the next date fixed. The opposite party No. 2, is, thus not in issue In this order.