RANITA CHAUHAN Vs. R.K. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant Contempt Petition filed under Sec. 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in judgment dtd. 3/1/2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.130 of 2018, whereby Division Bench of this Court while reserving the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation, directed Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to decide the same within a period of four weeks after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Since, despite there being aforesaid directions issued by Division Bench of this Court, Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, failed to pass order on the representation having been filed by the petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent.

(2.) Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondent, states that vide a judgment alleged to have been violated, positive directions were issued to Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to decide the representation, but in the case at hand, petitioner has not arrayed the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as a party-respondent. On the oral request of learned counsel representing the petitioner, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is impleaded as party-respondent. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, is directed to file amended memo of parties within a period of one week, enabling the Registry to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.

(3.) Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondent, while referring to communication dtd. 27/2/2019, addressed to the Special Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh by Executive Director (Pers.), H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla, contends that pursuant to directions contained in judgment dtd. 3/1/2019, HPSEB has already sent comments to the Department concerned, enabling it to pass appropriate orders on the representations having been filed by the petitioner. It appears that till date, Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh even after having received comments from the State HPSEB, has not passed final order on the representation having been filed by the petitioner pursuant to judgment dtd. 3/1/2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court.