AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This contempt application has been taken out for alleged lawful violation of the judgement and order dated 19th November, 2014 passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in MAT 339 of 2014. We have heard Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. We are, prima facie, satisfied
that there is violation of the said judgement and order on the part of the alleged contemnors.
Let a Rule of Contempt be issued upon the alleged contemnor No.1. The Rule is made returnable on 14th June, 2018.
The petitioner is directed to put in the requisites for expeditious service of Rule along with the copy of the contempt petition upon the alleged
contemnor No.1 within this week.
So far as the alleged contemnor No.2 is concerned, this Court had issued a Rule upon him on 18th January, 2018. 2
However, from the report of the department placed before us today, it appears that the Rule could not be served on the alleged contemnor No.2 since
he has retired from service.
The petitioner is directed to furnish the present address of the alleged contemnor No.2 to the department, so that the Rule can be served upon him.
After furnishing such address, the petitioner shall put in fresh requisites for expeditious service of the Rule on the alleged contemnor No.2.