S P WAHI Vs. SURENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants : (1) S. P. Wahi, Chairman. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Deharadun and (2) R. Srinivasan, Member Personnel. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, have filed this appeal under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Contempt of Courts Act (No. IXX of 1971) (which will hereinafter for the sake of brevity be referred to as 'the Act'), questioning the correctness of the order dated December 3, 1982, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in S. D. Civil Contempt Petition No. 75 of 1982. by which, the appellants were directed to attend the Court on the next date i. e. January 3, 1983.

(2.) THE respondent (who was petitioner in the writ petition) filed a writ petition under Article 226 of 'the Constitution on September, 16, 1980. seeking, inter alia, to quash the seniority list Ex. 2 dated September 3. 1979. Along with the writ petition, a stay petition was submitted praying that Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Deharadun (for short 'the Commission') may be restrained from promoting non-petitioners No. 2 to 10 in the writ petition to the post of Geophysicist (Instrumentation) Executive Engineer (Electronics) without first considering the petitioner (respondent) for promotion pending the decision of the writ petition. On February 6, 1981. the following interim order was passed: Shri Surendra Singh petitioner and his counsel Mr. B. L. Purohit have filed an application that the Respondent No. 1 i. e. Oil and Natural Gas Commission Dehradun has agreed to provisionally promote the petitioner along with Respondents Nos. 2 to 10. The petitioner, therefore, undertakes that in case his writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is required to be reverted, he will make good the loss to Respondent No. 1 on account of his provisional promotion. This application is signed by Mr. N. P. Gupta Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, who also submits that the petitioner will be provisionally promoted along with Respondents Nos. 2 to 10. Hence the ad interim stay order passed by this Court on 1-10-1980 is modified accordingly. A contempt petition was filed by the respondent on July 12. 1982 stating that the Commission as well as the appellants are wilfully flouting the undertaking given before the Court on February 6, 1981 and, therefore, they are guilty of wilful disobedience of the Court's order and have, thus committed contempt of the Court. The contempt petition came up before the learned Judge on July 15, 1982. On that day, he ordered that notices be issued to the Commission as well as the appellants to show cause, on August 2. 1982. why they should not be punished for contempt of Court, In pursuance of that notice, appearance was put in on October 8, 1982, on behalf of the Commission and the learned Counsel for the appellants stated that he will file power of attorney on their behalf also. On December 3, 1982, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the Commission as well as the appellants. On that day, the learned Judge directed the appellants (alleged contemners No. 2 and 3) to attend the Court on the next date i. e. January 3, 1983,

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated December 3. 1982, the appellants have filed this appeal as aforesaid. The appeal was admitted on December 20, 1982. Mr. B. L. Purohit, has appeared on behalf of the respondent.