PREM MOHINI SADANA Vs. Y S RATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition has been filed against the respondents for not complying with the directions given by this Court in its judgment dated 29.11.1990 Annexure P-1 promptly. It is averred that there was a delay in complying with the directions issued by this Court.

(2.) In the written statement filed by respondent No. 4, it has been stated that there was a delay in complying with the directions of this Court but the same was inadvertent. The mistake committed already stands rectified. It has been stated that the delay in complying with the directions of this Court was neither intentional nor wilful. In the replication filed, the averments made in the reply of respondent No. 4 stand controverted. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the State. From the perusal of the pleadings, I find that there was some delay in complying with the directions of this Court for which a reasonable explanation has been rendered by respondent No. 4. Rule discharged.