High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 08 J&K CK 0012

Sunil Kumar Gupta vs Mohd. Shafi Pandit and Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 17 August 2010 · Citation: (2010) 3 JKJ 504

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Contempt (SWP) No. 71 of 2008 in Service Writ Petition (SWP) No. 1330 of 1996

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 295 words

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge

1.

It is averred in the contempt petition that the respondents have not complied with the judgment dated 19th of April' 2004, on the grounds taken

in the petition.

2.

Respondents have filed the statement of facts and have resisted the petition. The respondents no. 1 to 3 have submitted that J&K Public Service

Commission was not a party to the writ petition. Respondents in the writ petition were the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Director Litigation

and Director General of Police. The contempt petition has been filed against those persons who were not party to the writ petition.

3.

This contempt petition on the face of it is not maintainable and merits to be dismissed on the following grounds.

4.

The respondents have passed the Government Order No. Home-58 (P) of 2008 dated 29th of January' 2008 (Annexure-D) in favour of the

petitioner, who has accepted the said order and has not made any grievance at the relevant point of time. Petitioner is caught by law of estoppel.

5.

If the respondents had failed to comply the directions contained in the judgment dated 19th of April' 2004 within three months, the petitioner

had to file the contempt petition within one year from the expiry of the said date, which the petitioner has not done, but has accepted the said

Government order, as discussed herein above and after a lapse of more than two years has filed the contempt petition in hand. Thus, this contempt

petition is barred by limitation in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Contempt of Courts Act, 1997.

6.

The J&K Public Service Commission was not a party before the writ Court, thus the petition is not maintainable against the respondents.

Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.