P MALLESHAM Vs. MOHAMMAD YOUSUFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 7 Petitioners herein are the teachers. They filed this application against the respondent under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (Act 70 of 1971), for short the Act, for wilful disobedience of the orders of this court D/- 19-3-1986 made in W.P. No. 2149 of 1986. They alleged in their affidavit and also stated in the evidence of the 1st petitioner examined today as P.W. 1 that on 12-5-1986 the petitioners went to the respondent and made a representation in the writing that the orders of transfer may be implemented. Till 25-5-1986, the respondent took no action. On 26-5-1986, they again made another representation and no action was taken. On 3-6-1986 again, they went and made an oral request to the respondent. Yet, he did not take any action. Therefore, they issued a legal notice through counsel on 4-6-1986, requesting the respondent to implement the orders, or else it amounts to disobedience of the orders of this court. Despite receiving the above representations no action has been taken. On the other hand, the respondent sent a reply dt. 10th or 12/06/1986 stating that, since the Government has imposed ban on transfers of the teachers, he cannot implement the orders of this court unless the Government lifts the ban. Again, on 14-6-1986, they approached the respondent for implementation of the order. He stated that he knows how to implement the orders of the court and he cannot implement the order as they approached this court and they can approach the court and obtain orders. In the meanwhile, it is stated by the respondent in the counter-affidavit that he addressed a letter to the District Development Officer whether he can implement the order of the court and the District Development Officer, in turn, has written letter to the Government seeking clarification and the Government, by their letter dt. 30-6-1986, stated that the ban imposed by the Government does not stand in the way of the respondent to implement the order of this court.

(2.) In the evidence of P.W. 1 he stated that, on 5-7-1986, when they again approached the respondent he stated that, since the petitioners have approached this court for contempt he would say to the court what he wanted to say and he need not implement the order and therefore he did not implement the order. On 7-7-1986, since the respondent received orders of promotion, he left the place without implementing the order. Subsequently, his successor implemented the order. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent has deliberately or wilfully failed to implement the orders of this Court. It amounts to contempt of this court.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is admitted that, on the receipt of the orders of this court, he did not implement the order and the stand taken in the counter-affidavit is thus :