R D SRIVASTAVA Vs. SUREN PANGING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against the order dated 30.5.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case No. 31(AP)/2002, where under he found the appellant to have committed the contempt of Court having acted wilfully in disobedience of the order dated 20.12.2000 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7036/2000.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are - that a writ petition was filed by one Mr S. Panging challenging the order of promotion issued in favour of respondent No. 4 Ms N.P. Maungh, to the post of Section Officer (Vigilance Branch) of the Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat. This Court while issuing notice of motion on the aforesaid writ petition, in the interim, directed that the promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Section Officer Group (B) Gazetted shall remain stayed. Opportunity was given to the respondents to move for modification, alteration or cancellation of this order. As per the Court's order the Government by its order dated 2.1.2001 kept the order of promotion of respondent No. 4 in abeyance.

(3.) The Government, thereafter, has filed an application for vacating the stay order on 30.7.01, which is numbered as Misc. Case No. 118(AP)/01. It appears that advice of the Government Advocate was sought for and by communication dated 21.3.2002 the Government Advocate informed the Secretary (General Administration), Government of Arunachal Pradesh that by virtue of operation of Article 226(3) of the Constitution, the interim order so passed stands vacated automatically as no order has been issued on the application for vacating stay within two weeks. In pursuance of the advice given by the Government Advocate the order dated 15.5.2002 was issued whereby the order of promotion of respondent No. 4 was given effect to and she was directed to continue in the post of Section Officer (Vigilance Branch). This order gave rise to the contempt proceedings which have been taken on the application moved by the original writ petitioner and passing of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge. Later on, the same Government Advocate sent yet another communication dated 28.5.2002 to the Secretary (General Administration) informing that the letter sent by him giving advice of automatic vacation of stay order was given inadvertently, in fact, by moving the application for vacating the interim order of stay would not be treated as the stay order automatically stood vacated. On the same day, after receiving the communication from the Government Advocate the order passed on 15.5.2002 has been revoked by the appellant by issuing a fresh order.