PANKAJ SHARMA Vs. C S BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Writ Petition No. 1737/90 the final orders were passed on 8. 8. 91. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under : - "the writ petitions, is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the petitioner's appearance in the 10th Standard Examination in the Session 1989-90 will be made clear by the respondent Board and the mark-sheet will be issued to him and he will be treated to have passed the Examination of 10th Standard in the Session 1989-90 like all other candidates. No order as to costs. "

(2.) THE aforesaid order was passed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the other respondents including the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer through its Secretary being respondent No. 1. THE aforesaid directions given by the Court were with regard to the petitioner's Examination of 10th Standard in the Session of 1989-90.

(3.) IN the additional reply apart from mentioning the facts relating to some other matter, it has been stated by the respondent that he was suffering from the Cancer Disease and he remained on leave w. e. f. 7. 3. 92 and was admitted in Bombay Hospital on 30. 3. 92 and he was successfully operated there and was later on discharged from the Hospital on 14. 4. 92 and after taking some rest he joined the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer on 8. 6. 92. Even if, that be so, there is no explanation whatsoever for the period prior to 7. 3. 92 and after 8. 6. 92. He had the knowledge of this Court's order dated 8. 8. 91 much before he proceeded on leave and he can't wriggle out from this factual position because the respondent itself had preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 8. 8. 91 was back on 4. 10. 91 itself and thus, in the reply, I don't find any explanation much less a convincing explanation for not complying the orders of this Court. On the contrary, I find that in the reply and in the additional reply the respondent is not even resentful for non-compliance for a considerable period in as much as in para 5 the respondent has stated that there was no wilful and deliberate inaction on the part of the Board. It is submitted that the appeal was pending before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and it was finally heard on 6. 8. 92 and Hon'ble Court granted one week's time from the date of passing the order dated 6. 8. 92 to declare the result of the petitioner and immediately as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court dated 6. 8. 92 the result of the petitioner was declared within the time prescribed and the compliance of the order of the Division Bench has been made. Even, this statement as made in the reply to the contempt petition is wrong and the respondent is also found guilty of making a factually incorrect statement in the reply before this Court in as much as it is admitted now before me that the communication with regard to the result was sent on 18. 8. 92 and yet the respondent has stated that he result of the petitioner was declared within the time prescribed when the prescribed time of 1 week was over on 13. 8. 92 so far as the order passed by the Division Bench dated 6. 8. 92 is concerned. On these premises the respondent has further submitted in the reply that the aforesaid facts are specific enough to convince this Hon'ble Court that there was no contempt much less wilful and deliberate. Thus, having denied that the respondent had not committed wilful and deliberate contempt he has used the words that he has full respect and regard to the orders of this Hon'ble Court and he cannot even think to commit any contempt of the orders of this Hon'ble Court since the appeal was pending against the order passed by this Court dated 8. 8. 91 and all the time it was adjourned with the intention that the matter will be finally disposed of since a short question of law is involved in it but for one reason or the other the matter could not be heard finally and immediately after the passing of the order in appeal the result of the petitioner was declared and the copy of the mark-sheet was sent at his home address. Having said all this the respondent says. " Even if in these circumstances the Hon'ble Court feels that any contempt has been committed by the respondent he tenders him un-conditional apology for the same. "even, in the additional reply which has been filed today during the course of arguments he has categorically stated in the sub-paragraph of para 6 that, "thus, the action of the answering respondent is neither intentionally nor wilfully. IN these circumstances this Hon'ble Court feels that the answering respondent had committed the contempt of the order of this Hon'ble Court he tender un-conditional apology for the same. " It is thus, obvious that there was no un-conditional apology whatsoever although, the word 'un-conditional apology' has been used and that too is coupled with more than one ifs and buts. Such apologies can't be said to be unconditional apologies by any stretch of imagination rather in my view through such apologies the contemner only seeks to pretend to be apologetic so as to wriggle out of the contempt and once it is found that there is no real repentance, there is no question of considering such statement as un- conditional apology which looks bonafides. Lastly, an application has been filed during the course of the dictation of this order in which it has been said that the respondent tenders his un-conditional apology before this Hon'ble Court. However, I find that apology is not worth acceptance for the simple reason that the real sense of repentance is wanting and it appears that so called un-conditional apology has been filed only to get out of this contempt notices and the Court is just sought to be taken for a ride on the basis of this so called un-conditional apology which is nothing but an eyewash.