Follow Us
Vijay Arora
Shimla, October 18
Taking a serious note of the disobedience of the court directions, the High Court has issued show-cause notice to then two senior officers of the Co-operation Department, asking why contempt proceedings against them not be initiated for deliberately and wilfully violating the judgment passed by the court.
Issuing notice to the then Additional Chief Secretary and Registrar Co-operative Society, the court observed: “Though the respondents in their reply have tendered unconditional apology for not obeying the directions, subsequently an attempt has been made by filing detailed reply affidavit to the contempt petition to justify their conduct. Rather, an attempt has been made to hoodwink this court.”
Justice Sandeep Sharma rejected the apology by observing that “This court deems it not proper case where unconditional and unqualified apology can be accepted. Rather, in given facts and circumstances of the case, they are required to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the Contempt of Courts Act because apology cannot be allowed to be used as a weapon of defence”.
It further observed: “It is necessary for the courts to exercise its contempt jurisdiction in order to ward off unjustified interference in their working. Those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail.”
The court further observed that “in the instant case where despite repeated orders respondents failed to comply with the directions contained in judgment passed on August 7, 2009, any such apology at this belated stage cannot be accepted. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussions, this court deems it a fit case, where show-cause notices are required to be issued to the respondents for non-compliance of the judgment”.
The court passed this order on a contempt petition alleging therein that despite the clear-cut directions of the court, the officers have not followed the same willfully with regard to seniority among two cadres on the basis of length of service in their respective cadres.
2