AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE judgment dated 3.2.92 in S.C. Case No.950A/92 was duly served upon the Respondents on 19.2.93 by the petitioner and the Respondents duly received the same under care seal and signature. Petitioner issued a notice through her Advocate which was duly received by the Respondents on 1.3.93 wherein Respondents were asked to comply with the order dated 3.2.93 passed by this Commission, failing which petitioner would be constrained to initiate proceedings before the Commission for execution of the order in question. Petitioner filed Execution Case vide No.Exe-4/93 on 17.3.93 and the copy of the petition for execution of the order and the summons was duly served upon the Respondents on the same day. On 26.3.93 when the matter was taken up by the Commission no explanation was given by the Respondents as to why the order dated 3.2.93 has not been complied with. THE matter again came up on 6,4.93 when the D.E.C.F. of Calcutta Telephone was asked to appear in person on the next date i.e. 16.4.93. On 16.4.93 the D.E.C.F. appeared and submitted that they will move before Hon''ble National Commission and asked for a months time staying the operation of the order dated 3.2.93. On 28.4.93 when the matter came up no application was preferred by the Telephone Authority praying for the stay of the order dated 3.2.93. 2.When the matter came up again on 30.4.93 the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents filed one petition stating inter-alia that necessary steps have been taken to file an appeal before the National Commission but no such statement has been made confirming the filing of appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly opposed the contention of the argument advanced by the Respondent on the ground that 2 and 1/2 months time has already been passed but no appeal has been preferred till date by the Respondents and moreover limitation has already come in and moreover no appeal has yet been preferred. He also referred one decision reported in I (1993) CPJ 358 wherein during pendency of the appeal before the National Commission the Execution Proceedings before the Sate Commission was not stayed. Accordingly the Learned Counsel for petitioner stated that the stay of the Execution Proceedings vide No. 4/93 would be unjust and illegal and he also contended that there is no provision in the Act to stay the operation of the own judgment of the State Commission after expiry of one month. 4. In the present circumstances we are also of the opinion that the Execution Proceedings cannot be stayed and the instant application for stay of the proceedings is rejected and the Respondents are directed to raise bills as directed by this Commission in it''s order dated 3.2.93 within seven days from the date of receipt of this order. Next date is fixed on 7.7.93. Application rejected.