BIPIN KUMAR. Vs. AISHA MUSHTAQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RPOWP no.22/2018 has been filed by Mr. Bipin Kumar, Passport Officer, Srinagar, Kashmir, respondent no.3 in contempt petition no.40/2018, for recalling on review the order of the Court dtd. 25/7/2018 ordering framing of Rule against respondents 2 and 3 in the contempt petition. Similarly, MP no.01/2018 has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 for recalling the said order.

(2.) Mr. M. A. Qayoom has taken two objections to the maintainability of the aforesaid review petition and the MP. He submitted that given the criminal nature of the contempt proceedings, the Court does not have the power to review its orders. Secondly, he submitted that even if it be assumed that a review petition could lie against the order of the Court directing framing of Rule against the contemnors, yet the instant review petition and the MP are not maintainable for want of the Advocate's Certificate required under Rule 51(2) of the High Court Rules. He submitted that the requirement of the Advocate's Certificate in a review petition has been held to be mandatory without which a review petition has been held to be not maintainable. In this connection, the Mr. Qayoom cited and relied upon three judgments of the Court, the first one being a Division Bench Judgment in Bashir Ahmad Dar & Co. v. State & ors, 1985 SLJ 100; the second one being in Bashir Ahmad Lone v. State & ors, 1997 SLJ 105; and the third one being in Ali Mohammad Wani v Qazi Abdul Rashid, 1999 SLJ 56.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the matter, I am of the view that dismissal or otherwise of the review petition and/or the MP will not, in any way, impact the liability of the respondents to implement the final judgment of the Court in its letter and spirit. It has to be borne in mind that Rule stands already framed against the respondents and they have not filed any response so far to the Rule so framed against them.