Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. In the absence of categorical material or communication of a stay order to contemner Nos. 3 and 4, Sri Kamla Ram and Jagannath Ram, the successive District Inspector of Schools. Mau and their conduct in relation thereto, it cannot be held that they have committed wilful disobedience of the aforesaid stay order of the High Court. So the notices to them need to be discharged.

9. Coming to Munna Prasad Verma, the present District Inspector of Schools, Mau contemner No. 5. He has filed successive affidavits one after the others in this petition. The first affidavit was dated 19th September, 1999 in which he appears to support the stand of the alleged Committee of Management whose manager Ram Prasad Singh. Contemner No. 2 claims himself to be and also disclosed his intention to file counter-affidavit in the writ petition and to place on record the relevant factor the Committee of Management of the institution and to move for vacation of the interim stay order aforesaid. In the second affidavit also which was dated 8.12.1999, he claims to be taking the steps for filing counter-affidavit in the writ petition side by side with the plea that he had no knowledge of the stay order of the High Court before the service of notice of the present contempt petition. He pointed out in it that he was posted at his present place of posting in June. 1999 only and that the stay order of the High Court was of the earlier period. However, in this second affidavit, in para 9 he categorically undertook to ensure the compliance of the interim order dated 30.4.1998 passed in a Writ Petition No. 14887 of 1998 within forty eight hours and to inform the Court about the compliance of the stay order even if the stay vacation is not heard and disposed of. In pursuance of this undertaking, he passed an order on 10.12.1999 in which it was said that in compliance of the interim order dated 30.4.1998 in Writ Petition No. 14887 of 1998, he directed single operation of the joint account of the National Inter College Adari Indara, Mau stating that thenceforth the joint account shall be operated with his signatures tilt further orders of the High Court. He has endorsed the copies of this letter to the Accounts Officer of his office and to the Branch Manager, Joint Regional Gramin Bank Adari Indara. A copy of this order was initially filed before this Court on 13.12.1999 with the affidavit of one Vijai Narain Pandey. Thereafter, he filed his own supplementary counter-affidavit on 15.12.1999 before this Court annexing a copy of the said order dated 10.12.1999 passed by him in compliance of the interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 of the High Court. In this affidavit, it was stated in the last paragraph of the affidavit that he did not disobey the order of the High Court wilfully or deliberately and hence the proceedings for contempt against him may be dropped. However, after that, he has filed his further affidavit dated 17th December; 1999 in which he threw himself at the mercy of the Court and tendered his unconditional apology. He has also appeared in person on 8.12.1999 and 17.12.1999 and he has also undertaken to personally appear today and now there \s nothing to show that he is still overtly or covertly implementing or acting upon the recognition contained in the order dated 8.4.1998. Thus this Court is now satisfied that he genuinely feels repetent and has now passed the said positive order in compliance of the interim stay order of the High Court dated 30.4.1998. Under these circumstances, I feel inclined to accept his unconditional apology.

14. There is another authority on the point in the case of Ram Ashish Ram v. Security Officer and another, ALR 1991 (18) 24 very fairly brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners in which also Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India was applied and it was said that in case, even for any unavoidable reason, the application for vacating stay order is not decided, the stay order shall stand vacated, by operation of law. The learned counsel has, however, pointed out that in this authority, it was said that in such a case, the counter-affidavit with stay vacation application ought to be filed within a reasonable time, which will be a very relevant circumstance in considering such matter as to whether the respondents have approached the Court within reasonable time and that he cannot be allowed to flout the order of Court by not implementing the same inspite of knowledge and to apply for vacating the Stay order after long delay and that such an attempt shall not be in good faith.

18. There is another hard fact in this case that the learned standing counsel never moved a stay vacation application nor filed any counter-affidavit and that the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition, namely Sri Kamla Ram, District Inspector of Schools, was sent a notice by registered post. Sri Kamla Ram, respondent No. 2 in the writ petition was transferred from his post but somebody or the other remains occupying the post of District Inspector of Schools and the office was continuously represented by the learned standing counsel yet no stay vacation application or counter-affidavit was ever filed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau or by the standing counsel on his behalf at any stage. Consequently, there is no question of the interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 getting automatically vacated since no stay vacation application or counter-affidavit was ever moved from the side of the District Inspector of Schools, whose order dated 8.4.1998 was stayed by the learned single Judge by his order dated 30.4.1998. It may be stated that the order dated 8.4.1998 had useful consequences for the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition (Committee of Management through Ram Prasad Singh) and, therefore, the interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 did adversely affect the rights of the respondent No. 3 of the writ petition (Committee of Management through Ram Prasad Singh, alleged Manager). So there can be no denial that this respondent No. 3 of the writ petition had a right to move the Court for vacation of the stay order dated 30.4.1998 but that does not mean that if this committee moved such an application and the same was not disposed of within the period of two weeks from the date a copy of the stay vacation application and the counter-affidavit moved by the respondent No. 3, the stay order dated 30.4.1998 would stand vacated under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. Such an anomalous situation has not been contemplated in Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and so the sub-clause (3) is in my opinion, not applicable to be present case. So this plea of the learned counsel for the contemner No. 2 is untenable and has to be rejected.

(2) Anand Kumar Pandey v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, (1995) 3 UPLBEC 1459.
(3) Ramesh Chandra Srivastava D. Chaudhary and others, 1996 CrLJ 1554.
(4) Mohd. Salim v. Sri Neeraj Jain and others, 1996 Cr LJ 1085.
23. In the circumstances of the present case, all the discussion on this point becomes academic for the simple reason that the stay vacation application moved in writ petition by respondent No. 3 Ram Prasad Singh (who is the alleged Manager and who is contemner No. 2 in the present contempt petition) was heard on merits and now by an order dated today, the said stay vacation application has been rejected and the said interim order has been confirmed till the final disposal of the writ petition. So now this interim stay order has to be complied with, by all concerned.