AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J.—This is an application for modification of the order dated 16.1.2009 passed in Contempt (C) Case No. 300 of 2008, by which the contempt petition was dismissed as it was held that no case for contempt was made out against the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar since he had discharged all the legal obligations which was directed by this Court. The order further indicated that no case was made out against the Headmaster of the School as he was not a party to the writ petition and hence could not have been made a party in the contempt petition.
The counsel for the petitioner has filed this application for modification of the aforesaid order dated 16.1.2009 wherein it was held that no case for contempt is made out against the Headmaster of the School, since he was not a party to the writ petition. The counsel has stated that the Headmaster was a party to the writ petition as also in the contempt petition and hence a clear case of contempt is made out against him since he is withholding the payment inspite of the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education while disposing of the representation of the petitioner which he was directed to do as per the order dated 16.1.2009. In support of his submission, he has produced a copy of the writ petition and stated that the Headmaster of the School was impleaded as respondent No. 5 to the writ petition and he Is also impleaded as respondent No. 5 in the contempt petition and as he refused to release the payment, a case of contempt is clearly made out against him.
Having verified the contents of the writ petition and the contempt petition, In the light of what has been submitted by the counsel, I find that his averment is correct and the Headmaster, in fact, was a party to the writ petition as also in the contempt application.
Consequently, the contempt petition, although, shall be treated as dismissed against the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar as no case of contempt is made put against him, a case for contempt, prima facie, is made out against the respondent No. 5, who is the Headmaster of the School and has not made the payment.
The order dated 16.1.2009, accordingly, stands modified to the extent that a case for contempt is, prima fade, made out against the respondent No. 5 - Headmaster. Thus, the Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 1439 of 2009) is allowed and the order dated 16.1.2009 is partially modified to the aforesaid extent.
Cont.(C) Case No. 300 of 2008
Since the application for modification filed by the petitioner has been allowed on the ground that prima facie case against the respondent No. 5 is made out, It is appropriate that a show cause notice in this contempt petition be issued against the respondent No. 5- Headmaster.
Accordingly, issue notice to the respondent No. 5- Headmaster of the School to show cause as to why a proceeding for contempt be not initiated against him for willful disobedience of the order dated 25.1.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7731 of 2006, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A.D. must be filed expeditiously.