ANANT RAM Vs. B.K. AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is for punishing the respondents for having wilfully disobeyed the directions of this Court as also that of the District Judge, Una dated 5.3.1988 and affirmed by this Court on 27.12.1994. At the outset, it can be said that nothing has been specifically stated against respondents 2 and 3 and we do not find any justification for proceeding against them under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(2.) WE are concerned only with the first respondent in this matter, who has appeared before us and also given a statement on oath in addition to the reply filed by him originally on 30.7.1996 and the supplementary affidavit filed on 14.3.1997.

(3.) THE most important part of the said direction with which we are concerned is that the Commissioner shall nominate 4 non-official members from the Panchayat where the temple was situated and in case such Panchayat members were not available, 4 non-official members were to be nominated from the area where the temple was situated.