AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Vikram Nath, J.—Bunch of writ petitions, wherein the leading case was registered as Writ Petition No. 43201 of 2010, Sunil Kumar versus State of U.P. and others were allowed vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2010. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows-
Thus, the decision taken by the State Government on 16th December, 2009 for cancellation of the examination on the basis of the inquiry report is set aside. Consequently the order dated 13th July, 2010 also deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. All consequential benefits shall accrue to the petitioners. It shall, however, be open to the State Government to hold a fresh enquiry after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners and the members of the Committee who conducted the examination.
The writ petitions succeed and are allowed to the extent indicated above.
Against the said judgment the State preferred an intra Court appeal. The Division Bench by order dated 24.5.2011, after condoning the delay, admitted the appeal but at the same time rejected the application for grant of interim relief. Copy of the said order dated 24.5.2011 has been filed as annexure SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit of August, 2011. Thus the fact remains that the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be complied with.
The contempt application was filed impleading Principal Secretary, Forest (opposite party No. 1), Principal Forest Conservator (opposite party No. 2), Chief Regional Forest Conservator, Mirzapur Region (opposite party No. 3) and the District Forest Officer, Mirzapur (opposite party No. 4). The contempt Court while entertaining the contempt application by order dated 19.4.2011 required the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions from the opposite party No. 3. Thereafter by order dated 7.9.2011 the contempt Court issued notices to the opposite party No. 4. The opposite party No. 4 in his reply took stand that it is the opposite party No. 3 who is competent to take a decision. Thereafter the contempt Court by order dated 2.11.2011, issued notices to the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 has since filed his affidavit in response to the notice dated 16.12.2011. In paragaraph 6 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the State Government is the competent authority to take a decision in the matter and as he had not received any decision from the State Government, he could not proceed any further.
It will be relevant to mention here that the writ petition had been filed challenging the decision of the State Government to cancel the examination. This Court had quashed the decision of the State Government as also the consequential order and had further provided that the applicant would be entitled to the consequential benefits as if examination had not been cancelled. From the above it appears that a decision needs to be taken by the State Government which is represented by the opposite party No. 1. The judgment of writ court is dated 22.12.2010 and the stay application of the State has been rejected by the Division Bench by order dated 24.5.2011 and as such substantial time had already lapsed and the State Government is still sleeping over the matter.
In the circumstances it is imperative that notices may also be issued to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2.
Accordingly let notices be issued to them, fixing 10.02.2012. Further as sufficient time had already lapsed, it would be open to the opposite party to ensure full compliance of the judgment of the writ Court in the meantime and file an affidavit of compliance by the next date, failing which the opposite party No. 1 shall remain present before this Court.
Office shall send a copy of this order also along with the notice.