AKHATARKHAN Vs. T V RAMNAN & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Singhvi, learned cousel for the petitioner submits that Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.L.Tibrewal had not jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench. He also submits that in view of Rule 324(2) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 the matter can only be heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mr. M.R.Calla who decided the writ petition or by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Verma, who has issued the contempt notice. He also submits that there is no urgency as personal appearance of respondent no. 3 Mr. J.P. Bansal has already been exempted by Hon'ble Tibrewal, J and the petitioner has already moved a review petition before the Hon'ble Tibrewal, J. on 30.11.92 against the order dt. 26.11.92 and, therefore, till the decision of review petition this Division Bench cannot hear this contempt petition.

(2.) On the other hand Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3 submits that the respondent no. 3 has not disobeyed the order of the Court nor he had any intention to disrespect rather the respondent as Law Secretary referred the matter to the Finance Department with a recommendation the upgrade the post of Senior Personal Assistant to the post of Private Secretary in the office of Addl. Advocate General, Jodhpur, on 19.9.92 within the stipulated period of two months in compliance of the order dt. 4.8.92. He further submits that the order of learned Single Bench merged in the order of Division Bench and the Division Bench posted the matter on 15.10.92 for further arguments on the stay application, but the petitioner Akhtar Khan instead of approaching the concerned Division Bench filed a contempt petition before the learned Single Judge that too not before the concerned Single Bench. Mr. Mehta also submits that the petitioner breached the undertaking given by his counsel that "that the respondent will not move contempt petition" and got the contempt notices issued even by suppressing the material fact of undertaking. He also submits that the State has also filed a contempt petition for breach of undertaking and suppressing of material fact against the petitioner. This Division Bench on 24.11.92 issued notice, therefore, the contempt petition filed by the petitioner Akhtar Khan deserves to be dismissed and notices issued against the respondent no. 3 be discharged rather the petitioner be punished for contempt of court as he has breached the undertaking and suppressed the material fact.

(3.) We has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant orders and material on record.