R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) ). THESE suo motu contempt proceedings arise from the order dated 27-12-2000 made by the learned single Judge directing the Registry to register the notice as an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972 against the respondent, who is the Registrar of this Court, on the ground that there was inaction on the part of the Registrar to comply with the directions issued by the learned single Judge on 8th February, 2000 in Civil Application No. 282 of 2000 which, prima facie, amounted to contempt of Court.

( 2 ) ). It appears that Special Civil Application No. 10364 of 1999 was filed by the Director, Government Printing and Stationery Department, Gandhinagar and the Additional Chief Secretary, Industries and Mines Department, Gandhinagar, against one Mr. M. G. Parmar, challenging the judgment and order dated 30-11-1998 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in a group of appeals which included Appeal No. 28 of 1998, setting aside the order dated 18-12-1997, by which the concerned employees were upgraded from Class IV to Class III posts, as a result of which, their dates of superannuation stood advanced by two years, and directing the authority that the order may be implemented with immediate effect.

( 3 ) IT appears from the record that, on 27-12-1999, in the said writ petition which came up before the learned single Judge, while issuing rule and notice as to interim relief which was made returnable on 7-2-2000, ad- interim relief was granted in terms of para 7[c] in which the petitioner- authorities had prayed for staying the execution and operation of the order dated 30-11-1998 in Appeal No. 28 of 1998. It further appears from the record that, on 8-2-2000, the application made by the respondent-employee mr. M. G. Parmar (Civil Application No. 282 of 2000) was heard along with another similar application (Civil Application No. 15385 of 1999) on the question as to whether the ad-interim relief should be vacated or not. In the present proceedings, we are concerned with the application which was made by the respondent-employee in Special Civil Application No. 10364 of 1999, which has been considered in para 7 of the order dated 8-2-2000. The grievance made before the learned single Judge was that, though the respondent-employee had lodged a Caveat on 29th November, 1999 against any petition that may be preferred by the Government and copy thereof was served upon the concerned authorities, the respondent-employee was not given an advance copy of the petition, nor was his caveat notified before the Court and this had resulted in a severe prejudice to him as the Court made an order on 27th December, 1999 granting ad-interim relief which adversely affected him without being given a hearing despite his Caveat. In view of the ad-interim stay of the order of the Tribunal, the respondent retired from service on 31st January, 2000. The Court observed that, "the prejudice was caused on account of the negligence on the part of the concerned officers, advocates as well as the Registry". It was also observed that once a copy of Caveat was served upon the party concerned, it was the duty of that party to serve an advance copy of the petition upon the Caveator. Whether the caveat has been lodged before the Court or not is hardly relevant, observed the Court. The learned single Judge then proceeded to hold, "however, there is no reason why I should suppose that the said lapse has been made deliberately with mala fide intention. I do not believe that the lapse has occurred for want of knowledge of practice and procedure. However, the same has caused serious prejudice to the Caveator. I am, therefore, of the view that the Caveator is required to be compensated for the prejudice caused to him. " The petitioners, were therefore, directed to pay Rs. 2,500-00 to the caveator-respondent by way of damages.

( 4 ) IN the context of the aforesaid lapses, the learned single Judge, not being satisfied with the explanatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document