STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a much publicized contempt petition seeking implementation of judgment in premature retirement case, Justice Alok Aradhe of J&K High Court directed concerned Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to file an affidavit as to why the bailable warrant could not be served on Commissioner/Secretary GAD.
Justice Alok Aradhe observed that this Court vide order dated 22nd May 2017 had directed to issue bailable warrant in the amount of 10,000 for securing the presence of Commissioner/Secretary GAD and the matter was fixed on 31st May 2017. However, application seeking recalling of order dated 22nd May 2017 was filed, which was rejected by this Court on 31st May 2017 and the Registry was directed to submit report whether the bailable warrant has been executed or not.
Justice Alok Aradhe further observed that from the perusal of the report submitted by the Registry, it is evident that the bailable warrant has been dispatched by the Registry for service on 25th May 2017 on Commissioner/Secretary GAD. Thereafter, it was the duty of the concerned SSP to serve the bailable warrant on Commissioner/Secretary GAD.
Justice Alok Aradhe further observed that at this stage, Senior Advocate D.C Raina for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. H. Phunindre Singh and others verses K. K. Seth and another, and has submitted that in case the Division Bench does not stay the order passed by the Single Judge, in such a case the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has directed the Single Judge to conclude the proceedings in the contempt petition within a period of three months. The facts of the aforesaid case are taken note of.
“It is well settled in law that mere filing of the appeal does not operate as stay. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Custom, Bombay verses M/s Krishna Sales. The Commissioner/Secretary GAD is required to purge the contempt by complying with the order passed by this Court”, the court observed adding that in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is directed that Commissioner/Secretary GAD shall purge the contempt by passing order in compliance of the directions issued by this Court before the next date of hearing, which shall be made subject to the order as may be passed by the Division Bench of this Court. In case, the order by this Court is stayed by the Division Bench, in that eventuality, the Commissioner/Secretary GAD need not to comply with the aforesaid directions.
