RAM NARESH SINGH Vs. UMA SANKER BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that respondent Sri Uma Shanker Bajpai, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, should be punished for disobeying the order passed by this Court.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition briefly are that the petitioner was suspended by the respondent by an order dated 3-10-1985 while he was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Manda, district Allahabad. THE petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of suspension in this Court and obtained an ex-parte interim order on 7-10-1985. By the said order the operation of the order dated 3-10-1985 was stayed and the petitioner was ordered to be paid his salary. It has been alleged that the copy of the interim order passed by this court was served on respondent on 8-10-1985 but the respondent did not comply with the order of this court. THEreupon the petitioner filed this petition in this court on 21-1-1986. THE learned single Judge before whom the petition was presented issued show cause notice to the respondent before issuing notice to the respondent on the contempt petition. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent on 26-2-1986 denying the allegations contained in the petition. Counsel for the petitioner was granted one month's time to file a rejoinder affidavit on 5-3-1986. THE case was listed on various dates but inspite of time granted on several occasions no rejoinder affidavit was filed till 24-10-1986 when the case was listed before me for admission. On that date the case was ordered to be listed as part heard on Tuesday next and thereafter the case was adjourned on some ground or the other some times either at the instance of the counsel for the petitioner or at the instance of the counsel for the respondent.

(3.) THE main thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this case is that since the petition was presented in this Court on 21-1-1986 which was within one year from the date of passing of the interim order and this Court while issuing notice has already applied its mind, therefore, the bar of section 20 would not be attracted in the instant case. Before expressing my opinion and also before deciding the question of limitation it would be desirable to refer to the relevant portion of the order dated 21-1-1986 passed by the learned single Judge, which reads :-