ANIL KUMAR PUROHIT Vs. GOVIND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this contempt petition, petitioners have alleged disobedience by the non-petitioners of the order dated 14.12.2011 as passed in CWP No.6506/2011. The petitioners submit that despite assurance as stated before the Court that the Government would be duly considering the representation within three months of its presentation; and despite the representation having been filed on 30.12.2011 and reminder having been sent on 09.03.2012, the non-petitioners were sitting tight over the matter and not taking decision on the representation.

(2.) ON 10.05.2012, after considering the matter preliminarily, we extended an opportunity to the Government Counsel Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, who had earlier stated assurance on behalf of the State Government in CWP No.6506/2011, to take instructions in the matter. Mr. Bhandawat later on appeared with the non-petitioner No.2, the Director, Technical Education; and pointed out that the comments on the representation had been sent to the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Technical Education Department on 14.02.2012. Mr. Bhandawat, however, expressed want of instructions from the Finance Department. In the circumstances, while issuing notices returnable for this date i.e., 21.05.2012, we had observed that if the decision on the representation would not be taken before this date, both the non-petitioners would remain personally present before the Court.

(3.) OF course, there had been some delay on the part of the respondents inasmuch as they did not take the final decision on the representation within three months as required; but in that regard, an unconditional apology has been stated in the reply and in the totality of the circumstances, we are satisfied that the delay and default had been unintentional.