O R D E R:

This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience of the respondents in implementing the order dated 17.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16105 of 2019.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The respondents filed their counter affidavits.

This Court by order dated 17.10.2019, directed the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the order dated 12.03.2014 in O.A.No.2838 of 2013 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. In the counter field by the respondents, it is averred that the order of this Court is complied with on 16.07.2021. As per the time stipulated by this Court in order dated 17.10.2019, it has to be complied with on or before 06.05.2020. As such, there is a delay of one year in implementing the order of the Court.

5. When this Court asked the 3rd respondent with regard to the delay caused in implementing the order, he submitted to the Court that he sought some clarification from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and he received that clarification only in the month of July, 2021 and as such there is no fault on his part in implementing the order and due to the reason that he could not get clarification from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the delay occurred in implementing the order.

6. The 2nd respondent, who is present before this Court submitted that it is a fact that the 3rd respondent sought some clarification by mail in the month of July, 2020 and in the month of August, 2020, the 2nd respondent instructed the 3rd respondent to send certain information to give clarification. Thereafter, there is no communication from the 3rd respondent. Only after receipt of the notice in the Contempt Case, in the month of July, 2021, the 3rd respondent submitted the information sought by the 2nd respondent in the month of August, 2021 and immediately he forwarded the same to the 1st respondent and within three days, the 1st respondent issued clarification and the same was sent to the 3rd respondent.

7. Upon careful examination of the submissions made by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is clear that in implementing the order of this Court, there is no fault on the part of the 1st respondent. As stated by the 2nd respondent, within three days, the 1st respondent issued clarification. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no contempt of Court by the 1st respondent and accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed against the

1st respondent.

8. With regard to the 2nd respondent, immediately after receipt of the communication through mail by the 3rd respondent in the month of July, 2020 to process the issue, he sought further information from the 3rd respondent in the month of August, 2020 and the 3rd respondent did not send the same till July, 2021. Immediately after receipt of the said information, he processed the file to the 1st respondent and as such in our view, there is no contempt on the part of the 2nd respondent also in implementing the order of the Court. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed against the 2nd respondent.

9. On careful examination of the entire material available on record and submission made by the counsels and respondents, the delay of one year caused in implementing the order of this Court is due to the 3rd respondent. If he sent information sought by the 2nd respondent within the reasonable time, there will be no delay in implementing the order. It appears till receipt of the notice in Contempt Case, the 3rd respondent kept quite without implementing the order. Due to that reason, the delay occurred. As such, in our view, the 3rd respondent committed Contempt of Court in implementing the order of this Court in true spirit. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is found guilty of contempt of Court and he is liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act.

10. When this Court asked the 3rd resp