PREM TULI Vs. A.S. ARUNACHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SARVASHRI Prem Tuli, Parminder Singh and other petitioners have filed this contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt or Courts Act (in short 'the Act') for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilfully and intentionally violating the order passed in COCP No. 336 of 2000 in pursuant to the decision in CWP No. 7601 of 1999.

(2.) THE petitioners had filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 7601 of 1999 for issuance of a writ quashing Annexures P-1 to P-4 attached therewith the writ petition whereby the petitioners were debarred from appearing in any examination for three years. The writ petition was disposed of on 3.11.2000 vide order Annexure P-2 with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioners within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was also ordered that the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the order, if so desire, amongst others, on the grounds and cause which had been taken in the writ petition. According to the petitioners, the directions contained therein were not complied with, therefore, they had filed COCP No. 336 of 2001 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. It was disposed of on December 07, 2000 by observing as under :-

(3.) THE respondents have controverted the grounds and the averments on the basis of which the contempt petition has been filed. According to them, the students had appeared before the Examination Committee and the Examination Committee had given then an opportunity to put forward their case. The petitioners had requested that their punishment be reduced and their result of the May, 1998 examination should be declared. Keeping in view their request, the Committee decided to reduce the punishment and permitted the petitioners to take the examination of 2000. It is also pleaded, inter alia, that the result of examination taken by the petitioners in December, 1998 could not be declared in view of the fact that on 9.3.1999, they were debarred for a period of three years on account of the 'unfair means case' and, therefore, from June, 1998, they were debarred from appearing in any examination up to June, 2001. The case of the petitioners was decided in terms of the order passed by this Court vide Annexure P-1.