AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shylendra Kumar, J.—An order or direction which is ambiguous can give rise to a dual meaning or capable of more than one possibility cannot be made subject matter in contempt jurisdiction on the premise that the person to whom such directions are issued has violated the order/direction. In the present contempt petition, complainant who was the writ petitioner in WP No. 2105 of 2007 had questioned certain adverse remarks that had entered into his service record and who was successful in getting rid of them through the order passed in the writ petition was nevertheless able to secure further order/direction while allowing the writ petition.
A direction of such nature which was not even incidental and apart from it to direct that the petitioner therein to be promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and to the Post of Executive Engineer at one go, is in our considered opinion, rather an ambiguous order and not one based on any entitlement or a right, but more out of a wishful thinking or sympathetic exercise of jurisdiction in favour of the complainant.
We are of the clear view such directions/orders cannot give rise to cause in contempt jurisdiction to call upon the accused person to receive punishment etc. Therefore, this contempt petition is dismissed.