Advocates:
['M S BHANDARI', '', 'RANGOLI PUROHIT', 'ABHILASH NAINWAL', 'PANKAJ PUROHIT', 'ANJALI NOLIYAL', '', 'PRABHA NAITHANI', 'C S C']

SL.

No

Date

Office Notes, reports,

orders or proceedings

or directions and

Registrar’s order with

Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

CLCON No. 254 and 257 of 2018

Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Shri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the

petitioners.

Shri H.M. Raturi, learned Deputy Advocate

General for the State/ respondents.

Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the

respondent no. 2.

By filing these contempt petitions, learned

counsel for the petitioners seeks to execute the

order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court on 09.06.2017 in WPSS Nos. 1286 and 1287

of 2017.

Learned counsel for the State would submit

that writ petitions and applications for vacation of

interim order are pending in both the cases. He

would further submit that in a similar matter the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in CLCON No.

255 of 2018, closed the contempt proceedings vide

order dated 04.08.2020 by relying upon the ratio

decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Mohd. Yaqoob

Khan (1992) 4 SCC 167 wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that the contempt

petition will not lie for violation of interim order,

when application for vacation of stay / interim

order is pending before the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that case of Mohd. Yaqoob is not

applicable to the present case, as the interim order

has been passed in the presence of State Counsel

and this order is not an ex parte order and

secondly, interim relief application is finally

disposed of though writ petitions are pending.

This Court is not in agreement with the

submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioners. As application for vacation of stay /

interim order is pending before the Court and

there is categorical finding of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the aforesaid case that the Court should

have first heard the application for vacation of

stay / interim order before taking up contempt

petition. Moreover, same view has been taken by

the Coordinate Bench in CLCON No. 255 of 2018.

Hence, in our view, contempt petitions should not

proceed any further.

In that view of the matter, both contempt

petitions are dismissed and contempt proceedings

are dropped.

All the pending applications stand disposed

of accordingly.

Let copy of this order be placed in the

connected contempt petition.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)

24.08.2022

SKS