The stay matter in the writ petition must be disposed of before further proceedings in the contempt case.

A. B. Srivastava, J.

1. By means of this application under the contempt of Courts Act the petitioner has prayed that the opposite parties be punished for having flouted the order of this Court dated 15-2-1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 5659 of 1993 Jagdish v. Director, Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra.

2. On 15-2-1993 the following order was passed in the writ petition. "Sree S P. Singh pratipakskigan ki oar se upasthit hai our tin saptah ka samay pratishapath patra dakhil kharne ke liye chahate hain. Samay diya jata hai. Taduprant aek saptah ka samay prati uttar sapath patra dakhil karne ke liye diya jata hai. Yachika bichararth sunwai ke liye dinank 15_3_1993 ko suchi badh ho. Agrim aadeshon tak yadi yachi se kanisth karmachari chaturth shreni karmachari ke rup me karya kar raha hai, to yachi ko uske pad par us samay tak kam karne diya jai, jab tak us pad ka karya dainik betan bhogi karmachari se liya jata hai aur adanusar yachi ko kam par wapis liye jane ki tithi se niyamit rup se dainik bhatta jo unko deya ho wah diya jai."

The record of the writ petition which has been summoned shows that the counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of the opposite party- respondents in the writ petition on. 15-3-1993 praying for the exparte interim order dated 15-2-1993 to be vacated, Time was sought by the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit as far back as on 17-3-1993. However, no rejeinder has yet been filed. The stay vacation application has also not yet been decided in the writ petition.

3. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of J. and K. v. Mohd Yaqoob Khan, JT 1992 (5) SC 278, that so long the stay matter in the writ petition was not finally disposed of, further proceedings in contempt case was itself misconceived and no order therein could have been passed. Further, in paragraph 7, the Supreme Court observed thus :-

"We, therefore, held that the High Court should have first taken up the stay matter without any threat to the respondents in the writ case of being punished for contempt. Only after disposing it of, the other case should have been taken up."

4. In view of this proposition of law, laid by the Supreme Court, the present contempt application cannot proceed unless the stay vacation application is disposed of in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the hearing; of this contempt case is liable to be postponed and is adjourned to 15th March, 1994 to enable the parties to get the motion for stay vacation finally disposed of, and produce a copy of the order is this regard in the present case.

5. Let the record of the writ petition be returned immediately to Writ A Section for being placed before the Bench concerned.