AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member-A)
We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing.
None present for the petitioner. Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
Heard learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record available with us in pdf
When the case was listed on 01.09.2021, this court had passed the following order: -
“We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing.
No one is present for the applicant either in court or online through video conferencing. Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is present in court.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that now this contempt petitioner does not survive and it has become infructuous perhaps that is the reason that no one has appeared before this court to press it, therefore, the contempt proceedings may be closed.
As today no one is present for the petitioner, it does not appear proper to pass any adverse order in his absence.
List on 28.09.2021.
Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to intimate the counsel for the petitioner in writing about the date fixed.
It is made clear that if on the next date, the petitioner remained absent, the order will be passed on merits after perusing the record.
Copy of the order be provided to learned counsel for the respondents.”
As sequel to the aforesaid order, this contempt petition deserves to be dismissed for want of non-prosecution. Further, learned counsel for the respondents draws attention to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad in W.P. 52667/2017 wherein the order of the Tribunal has been challenged. Hon’ble High Court while upholding the limited direction of the Tribunal held that “..the amount directed to be paid by the Tribunal shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondents subject to respondents furnishing security to the satisfaction of the authority concerned.”. Learned counsel for the respondents mentions that he has filed an additional affidavit of compliance stating therein that despite repeated request to the applicant to furnish the said security, the applicant has not been coming forward at all. There is no one to contest his statement.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the contempt proceedings are liable to be closed and, accordingly closed. The notice is discharged.
Hon’ble Ms. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (Judicial) has consented to this order during virtual hearing.