Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari vs Shashi Kant Sharma Cag New Delhi on 4 August, 2017
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
BENCH, ALLAHABAD
(This the 04th Day of August, 2017)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Gokul Chandra Pati, Member (Administrative)
Contempt Petition No.330/87/2017
(Arising out of Transfer Application No.1593/2016)
1. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari son of Shri Raghunath Tiwari, Resident of
457B/355B, Mumfordganj Housing Scheme, Mumfordganj,
Allahabad.
2. Vivek Sinha son of Shri R.P. Sinha, Resident of 498, Shivaji
Nagar, Baghambari Gaddi, Allapur, Allahabad.
3. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Son of R.P. Gupta, Resident of House
No.29, Old Mumfordganj, Allahabad.
................ Applicants
By Advocate: Shri S.N. Tripathi
Versus
Shashi Kant Sharma, Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
Government of India, 9 Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi
110124.
..... ............. Respondent
By Advocate: Shri R.K. Rai
Page No. 2
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta- Member (J) Shri S.P. Shukla, Advocate is present for the applicant. Shri R.K. Rai, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Counsel for the respondents submitted that he has complied with the order dated 03.01.2017 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.1593 of 2016.
3. We have perused the order dated 03.01.2017, by which the respondent No.2 was directed to decide the representation of the applicant and in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent vide order dated 21.07.2017 considered the representation of the applicant and rejected the same by reasoned and speaking order.
4. In view of para 4 and 5 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalith Mathur vs. L. Maheswara Rao reported in (2000)10SCC 285 (which is quoted below), the present contempt petition is liable to be dismissed:-
"4. The High Court in the writ petition had issued a direction for the consideration of the respondent's representation by the State Government. This direction was carried out by the State Government which had considered and thereafter rejected the representation on merits. Instead of challenging that order in a fresh writ petition under Article 226, the respondent took recourse to contempt proceedings which did not lie as the order had already been complied with by the State Government which had considered the representation and rejected it on merits.
5. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 10.08.1998 is set aside and the contempt petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. We, however, make it clear that it will be open to the respondent to challenge the order by which his representation was dismissed on merits, in such proceedings as he may be advised. There shall be no order as to costs."
It is clear that there is no wilfull disobedience on the part of the respondent and respondent has complied with the order of this Court by passing a reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the applicant. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notice issued to the Page No. 3 respondent is discharged. However, if the applicant is still aggrieved by the order of the respondent he may file fresh O.A. for challenging the same.
(Gokul Chandra Pati) (Justice Dinesh Gupta)
Member-A Member-J
Sushil