A J TAYENG Vs. ANSHU PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the respondent and to punish him adequately under the said Act, alleging that the order dated 10. 12. 2008 passed in W. P. (C) No. 465 (AP) of 2008 has been wilfully violated by the respondent in so far the direction contained in the said order to the effect that "the writ petitioner may not be disturbed until expiry of his tenure as prescribed".

(2.) I have heard Mr. T. Michi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General, assisted by Ms. G. Deka, learned State Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) MR. Michi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though vide order dated 10. 12. 2008 this court while dismissing the W. P. (C) No. 465 (AP) of 2008 has directed that the writ petitioner may not be disturbed until expiry of his tenure as prescribed under Section 138 of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1997 (in short, 1997 Act), the respondent who is the Commissioner and Secretary (PR), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, by passing the order dated 09. 02. 2009, whereby and whereunder all concerned have been intimated that the tenure of the Chairman/member of the State Finance Commission is upto 20. 05. 2008 and accordingly the petitioner has completed his tenure, has wilfully and deliberately violated the aforesaid direction contained in the order dated 10. 12. 2008, as under Section 138 of the 1997 Act, the tenure of appointment of the petitioner as member of the Finance Commission is 5 (five) years, which will expire on 21. 09. 2005, keeping in view the order of reconstitution of the State Finance Commission with the petitioner as the lone member, dated 22. 09. 2005. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respondent may adequately be punished after drawing the contempt proceeding against him.