(1.) P Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 Mr. Rameshwar prasad. learned counsel for Opposite Party no. . 4
(2.) BY order dated 11th July, 1995 given in this M. J. C. No. . 933 of 1994 [1995 (2)PLJR 632], I found that the State authorities did No. t act fairly and their intention was No. t to comply with the order of this Court given in C. W. J. C. No. . 11754 of 1992 [1996 (1)PLJR 128] which amounted to gross contempt. However considering the entire facts and circumstances. Opposite Parties No. . 1 to 4 were given last chance to purge the contempt by complying with the direction of this Court in the aforementioned C. W. J. C. No. . 11754 of 1992 within a week from the date of judgment/order passed in this case i. e. from 11th July, 1995. Thereafter it appears that the said opposite parties moved in Letters Patent Appeal No. . 674 of 1995 before the Division Bench of this Court in which on 14th July 1995 an interim order was passed staying further proceedings in this matter. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that by judgment and order dated 15th No. vember, 1995, the said l. P. A. has been dismissed as being not maintainable by the Division Bench and the matter was directed to be placed before me for m. J. C. No. . 933 of 1994 [1995 (2) PLJR 632] passing appropriate orders. Accordingly, this matter has been listed today for orders.
(3.) LEARNED Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the opposite parties have moved the Hon'ble Supreme court against the judgment and order passed in the L. P. A. as well as against the order 11th July, 1995 passed in this M. J. C. application in order to get an order from the supreme Court.