CLCON/133/2016 of Kali Charan Vs Visnu Kant Dhanik
Parties
- By means of present contempt petition, the petitioner seeks to punish the respondent / opposite party for committing gross contempt of the order dated 22.01.2016, passed by co-ordinate Bench of this C (PETITIONER)
- State of Uttarakhand and others. It is further prayed that the contemnor be directed to comply with the order of the Court, passed in the aforesaid writ petition (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
CLCON No. 133 of 2016
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
By means of present contempt petition, the petitioner seeks to punish the respondent / opposite party for committing gross contempt of the order dated 22.01.2016, passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPSS no. 142 of 2016, Kalicharan vs State of Uttarakhand and others. It is further prayed that the contemnor be directed to comply with the order of the Court, passed in the aforesaid writ petition.
The order sought to be executed is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience:
“Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner for payment of honorarium i.e. Rs. 7,500/- per month within period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.”
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the casual approach on the part of respondent should not be tolerated and strict action should be initiated against the alleged contemnor.
One of the objectives of contempt jurisdiction is the enforcement and compliance of the order of the Court.
This Court, instead of issuing notice to the respondent / opposite party, reiterates the order dated 22.01.2016, passed by the Court and directs the authority concerned to forthwith decide the representation of the petitioner for payment of honorarium i.e. Rs. 7,500/- per month, failing which he will be liable to face appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Petitioner is directed to place copy of this order, as also the order dated 22.01.2016 to remind the respondent that duty is cast upon him to do something, which has not been done.
With the observation as above, the contempt petition stands disposed of.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.)
25.04.2016