Fayaz Ahmad vs M.Y.Qadiri

This contempt petition emanates from the main writ petition, registered as OWP No: 147 of 1996 titled Fayaz Ahmad versus University of

Kashmir and others which stands disposed of at the very outset by this court vide order dated 20061996, in the following terms:

......I think that issuance of notice to the respondents will not serve any purpose. In view of the innocuous nature of relief which the learned

counsel prays for, this petition can be disposed of at the very stage without admitting it to formal hearing.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. The respondent University is directed to look into the matter and pass orders under rules regarding the

bills submitted by the petitioner to the University for the supply of stationery and other articles pending in the Vice Chancellor's Office. The needful,

as aforesaid, shall be done within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.......

Petitioner complains that since respondents have failed to comply the court directions, as such, contempt proceedings be initiated against them.

It may be noted that the apex court in Civil Appeal No. 7409 of 1996 arising out of SLP(qNo. 4678 of 1996 titled Union of India Vs. Daya

Ram has observed as under:

It will be noted that both the orders of the learned Single and of the Division Bench give the respondent same relief ""without admitting the petition

to hearing"". It is difficult to see how enforceable orders directing the respondents to a writ petition to do certain things can be passed upon a

proceeding which, in express terms, is stated to have not been admitted. We appreciate that the writ petition itself was disposed of at the

admission stage by consent of parties. At this stage, rule should have been issued to the present appellants and the judgment and order should have

noted that service thereof was accepted on behalf of the present appellants by learned counsel who was present on their behalf. The final order

would have made the rule absolute. The order passed by the Learned Single Judge would thus have been passed upon a petition which was

admitted and was on the file of the High Court. In order would have been enforceable.

The Division Bench, when it modified the order of the learned Single Judge in appeal, made no modification in this behalf. The order of the Division

Bench directing the present appellants to consider the respondent's case was also, in express terms, passed upon a writ petition that was not

admitted......

Thus in light of the authoritative pronouncements of the apex court (supra), which has the force of law, no order can be issued/implemented

which has been passed in a writ petition by the court without issuing rule.

Here in this case also, rule has not been issued and made absolute, as such, the order is not enforceable and no contempt proceedings can be

initiated against the respondents for noncompliance of the order passed. This contempt being thus misconceived, is accordingly dismissed.