SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 115


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 24..09..2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Cont.P.No.1711 of 2012 in W.P.No.13067 of 2005 and Sub Appln.No.602 of 2012 S.Joseph Raj .. Petitioner Versus
11.Shri P.K.Misra The Secretary to Government Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
22.Dr.V.K.Saraswat The Scientific Adviser to Minister of Defence and Director General Research & Development D.R.D.O. Bhavan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi 110 011.
33.Dr.G.Malakondaiah Director, DMRL PO Kanchanbagh Hyderabad 500 058.
44.Shri V.P.Pandey Director of Management Services D.R.D.O. Bhavan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi 110 011. .. Respondents Contempt Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying to punish the respondents for disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13067 of 2005 dated 30.04.2009.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan For Respondents: Mr.G.Rajagopalan Addl. Solicitor General
of India

ORDER

"Knock with faith, the doors of heaven will open to you" proclaimed Christ, the son of Joseph. Alas! Joseph Raj, the petitioner herein, has been relentlessly knocking the doors of the Government in vain and he continues to be in hell without employment.

2. In this contempt application, the petitioner is seeking to indict the above named four respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13067/2005. The matter came up for admission on 11.12.2012 and notice was issued to the respondents. On receipt of notice by the respondents, memo of appearance was filed by Mrs.R.Maheshwari, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on their behalf.

3. Mr.P.K.Misra, the first respondent and Mr.V.P.Pandey, the fourth respondent have filed a detailed counter affidavit. Mr.V.P.Pandey has stated in his counter affidavit that he has filed it on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 also. The first respondent also filed his typed set of papers along with the counter affidavit.

4. We heard the arguments of Mr.Singaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General for Mrs.R.Maheshwari, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. During conclusion of either side arguments, we felt that it will be better if the alleged contemnors are directed to appear in person, so that we could ascertain from them if there are any administrative difficulties in implementing the directions issued by this Court. We did not want to merely pass final orders in this Contempt Application by going through the averments in the counter affidavit and hearing the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent. From our experience we know that, in Government Service, the Officer who passed the impugned order may not always be in the same seat when the matter reaches the stage of final adjudication in the Court. Bearing all these factors in mind, we passed an order on 30.01.2014 directing the contemnors to be present in the Court, so that we could hear their difficulties, if any, and pass appropriate orders in the open Court.

6. As requested by the learned Additional Solicitor General, we posted the case to 12.02.2014 at 2.15 p.m. On 12.02.2004, Mr.P.Wilson, the then learned Additional Solicitor General represented that, our order dated 30.01.2014 was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.4498/2014. Therefore, we adjourned the case. After final orders were passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5894/2014 [arising out of SLP (C) No.4498/2014] on 01.07.2014, this Contempt Application was once again listed before us.

7. In the meantime, due to change of Government in the Centre, Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appeared for the respondent and submitted his arguments, based on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.07.2014. He submitted that the order dated 30.04.2009 in W.P.No.13067/2005 [which is the subject matter of this Contempt Application] had merged with the order of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.14962-14963/2010 dated 14.02.2012 and therefore, this Contempt Application before this Court is not maintainable and that, the petitioner should have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if he is aggrieved. In support of this contention, learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in:

(1) Chandi Prasad vs. Jagdish Prasad [(2004) 8 SCC 724]; and

(2) Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala [(2000) 6 SCC 359] where the 'Doctrine of Merger' has been elaborately discussed.

8. Per contra, Mr.Singaravelan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the facts of this case, the "Doctrine of Merger" will not apply and he relied upon the following judgments:

(1) Omprakash Verma and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [(2010)13 SCC 158]

(2) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. Pearl Drinks Limited [(2010) 11 SCC 153]

(3)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top