STATE OF H.P. Vs. MULK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was stated by Mr. Ramakant sharma and Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent No.l and 2 that both the respondents are present in the Court. They have been identified also as respondents No. 1 and 2, by the counsel.

(2.) The State of Himachal Pradesh and Assistant Excise and Taxation commissioner, Solan have filed this petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 for initiating contempt proceedings against respondents (respondet No. 1 Mulk Raj, son of Narata Ram and respondent No.2 Bhupinder Kumar, son of Mulk Raj) for willful, intentional and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 1st March, 2001 passed by a Division bench of this Court in CMP No. 163 of 2001 in CWP No.96 of 2001. When the main matter i.e CWP No.96 of 2001 came up before the Division Bench, fresh notice was issued. In CMP No.163 of 2001, on 1st March, 2001, the following order was passed: "We have heard for the petitioner and learned Advocate General on behalf of opponents No. 1 and 2 as the relief prayed for by the petitioner pertains to interim relief against opponents No.l and 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if we permit the respondent -authorities to proceed with the auction of attached property of the petitioner, but sale will not be confirmed before further orders to be passed by this Court and if(?) will be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. The said fact will be intimated to the bidders at the time of auction. Dasti copy on usual terms."

(3.) The allegation of the applicants is that the order was passed in presence of Mulak Raj, respondent No. 1 herein (petitioner, in the main matter). By the said order, the State -authorities were allowed to proceed with the auction of attached property of the petitioner. The only interim relief granted was not to confirm sale before further orders by the Court and the auction was made subject to final outcome of the writ petition. The said fact was to be intimated to the bidders at the time of auction. The auction was to be held on 3rd March, 2001.