Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SH. VIJAY SINGH, SECRETARY HOME & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MITTANLAL HINDOLIYA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996
Present:
Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik
Prashant Kumar and S.K.Agnihotri, Advs. for the
appellants Dr.I.B.Gaur, Adv. for the Respondent
O R D E R
The following Order of the court was delivered:
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arise from the order in
the contempt proceedings dated August 1, 1995 made by the
Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Indore in
Miscellaneous Application No.99 of 1994.
The admitted position is that the respondent was
appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the Police Department on
January 1, 1960 and his date of birth in the High School
Certificate was August 5, 1934. In 1992, he filed an
application in the Tribunal for correction of his date of
birth contending that his date of birth was July 16, 1938.
The Tribunal by order dated February 25, 1994 disposed of
the application with a direction to consider the
representation of the respondent. The representation was
considered and rejected by proceeding dated May 23, 1994.
Consequently, the respondent filed a contempt application
contending that the appellants have wilfully and
deliberately disobeyed the order of the Tribunal and sought
for initiation of the proceedings against the appellants
under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. In the
impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the respondent
has not deliberately disobeyed the orders of the court as
direction was to consider the case afresh on the finding
that the Director General of Police had not applied his mind
to the issue and therefore the impugned order came to be
issued. The question is : whether the Tribunal was right in
its giving directions? It is seen that the Assistant
Inspector General of Police who is the Administrative
Officer assists the Administrator, namely, the Director
General of Police. He had put up the note on it and after
consideration of it the Director General of Police had made
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
a note "inform the respondent". Obviously, after
consideration of the case he did not agree wit the claim of
the respondent and accepted the report submitted by his
subordinate, viz., Assistant Inspector General of Police.
Thus, it would be a case where due consideration was given
to the respondent’s representation as per the directions
given by the Tribunal. The Tribunal having held that the
respondent has not deliberately disobeyed the order, there
is no power to issue further directions.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The direction are
set aside. No costs.