B.K. Sharma, J.@mdashThe facts leading to this contempt petition are that National Inter College was a duly recognised Intermediate College on the maintenance grants-in-aid list of the State Government having an approved Scheme of Administration. The present petitioners bound to base themselves on an election of the Committee of Management of the institution held on 12.10.1997 in which Ashfaq Ahmad, present petitioner No. 2, was said to have been elected as manager of the institution. The District Inspector of Schools, Mau by his order dated 17.10.1997 recognised the present, petitioner Committee of Management. After the transfer of the earlier District Inspector of Schools, Mau. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, took over as District Inspector of Schools, Mau and had directed on 7.11.1997 single operation of the payment of salary to the staff of the institution by herself. Ram Prasad Singh, contemner No. 2, claimed himself to be elected in an election dated 19.10.1997 as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution. The District Inspector of Schools, Mau. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, contemner No. 1, passed an order dated 8.4.1998 which was in the form of a letter addressed to the Gramin Bank concerned recognising Ram Prasad Singh, present contemner No. 2, as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution elected in the election dated 19.10.1997. This order dated 8.4.1998 was challenged by . the present petitioners by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14887 of 1998 against (1) the District Inspector of Schools, Mau, (2) Kamla Ram, District Inspector of Schools, Mau and (3) the alleged Committee of Management. National Inter College, Adari Indara, Mau through its alleged Manager Ram Prasad Singh. In that writ petition, the petitioners also moved a stay application praying to stay the operation of the order dated 8.4.1998 aforesaid. The said writ petition was filed on 24.4.1998. On that date, the copies of the writ petition and its annexures along with the affidavit and stay application were given to the learned standing counsel on behalf of the D.I.O.S. respondent No. 1 for which an endorsement was made on the writ petition and also on the stay application on behalf of the learned standing counsel. The writ petition came up for admission before Hon''ble B. Dixit, J., on 30.4.1998. On that date, he passed the following orders :
"Admit.
Issue notice.
Notice need not be sent to opposite party No. 1 who is represented by standing counsel. Standing counsel prays for and is granted three weeks for filing counter-affidavit. Operation of order dated 8.4.1998 shall remain stayed until further order. The petitioner will take steps to serve opposite parties 2 and 3 within 10 days by registered post A.D. failing which interim order shall stand vacated. Sd. B. Dikshit.
30.4.1998."
2. Now in this present contempt petition, it has been alleged that in pursuance of the directions given by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid order dated 30.4.1998, steps were taken by the petitioners to serve respondent No. 2 Kamla Ram and the respondent No. 3 (the alleged Committee of Management through alleged Manager Ram Prasad Singh) through registered post on 3.5.1998 whose copies were Annexure-5 to the affidavit of Ashfaq Ahmad in support of the contempt petition, that steps were also taken on 1.5.1998 in order to serve these respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through Court and requisite fee by way of Talwana was duly filed in the office of the High Court on 2.5.1998, a true copy of the receipt in this connection being Annexure-6 to this affidavit, that the order dated 30.4.1998 was duly served by the petitioners in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Mau respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 4.5.1998, which was duly received in the office of the respondent No. 1 on the same date i.e., 4.5.1998, that a true copy of the letter dated 4.5.1998 is being annexed as Annexure-7 to this affidavit ; that a copy of the order of this Court dated 30.4.1998 was also served by the petitioners in the Bank in which the accounts are operating in respect of the institution and the same was duly received in the office of the Bank on 8.5.1998 ; that a true copy of the covering letter, dated 8.5.1998 received in the Bank is annexed as Annexure-8 to this affidavit ; that thereafter wholly illegally, an order was passed by Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, the District Inspector of Schools, Mau, contemner-respondent No. 1 in this contempt petition, dated 13.5.1998, a true copy of the order dated 13.5.1998 passed by Smt, Madhuri Srivastava contemner-respondent No. 1 being annexed as Annexure-9 to this affidavit ; that the order dated 13.5.1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 contemner Smt. Madhuri Srivastava is in complete violation of the interim order dated 30th April, 1998 ; that the said contemner Smt. Madhuri Srivastava District Inspector of Schools, Mau. respondent No. 2, should have accepted the photocopy of the interim order served by the petitioners, and that moreover, she should have asked the petitioners to supply the original copy, in case she was not satisfied with the photostat copy of the interim order granted by the High Court dated 30.4.1998 but she never asked the petitioners at any point of time to submit the original copy of the interim order granted by the High Court, that she was not at all justified in refusing to accept the photostat copy of the interim order granted by the High Court ; that without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioners to supply the original certified copy of the interim order, she passed the order dated 13.5.1998, that in the circumstances, the submission of the photocopy of the interim order was sufficient communication of the order to her ; that another reason given in the order passed by the contemner respondent No. 1 is ten days'' time was expired and she did not get any information from the registered post from the High Court is wholly illegal and it cannot be the basis of not accepting the interim order granted by the High Court ; that, in fact, the steps were already taken by the petitioners within ten days'' in order to serve the notices through registered post, as directed by the High Court ; that direction was given by the High Court on 30.4.1998 to serve the respondents 2 and 3 (in writ petition) through registered post and notices were duly sent through registered post on 10.5.1998, i.e., within ten days ; that she was thus liable to be punished for contempt ; that Ram Prasad Singh contemner respondent No. 2 was also liable to be punished for committing the contempt of this Court since inspite of the knowledge of the interim order granted by the High Court, he himself did not agree for attestation of his signatures as Manager of the institution in question since his signatures'' attestation has already been stayed by the High Court but by way of the order dated 13.5.1998, passed by the contemner respondent No. 1, he was again permitted to work as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution in question. It was also alleged in this affidavit dated 18th May, 1998 that uptil then, no stay vacation application or counter-affidavit has been filed and the interim order granted by the High Court is continuing although the respondents were bound to comply with and obey the interim order granted by the High Court.
3. On this contempt petition, Hon''ble Bhagwan Din, J., passed the following orders on 19.5.1998 :
"Issue notice calling up the opposite parties to appear in person in the Court on 4.8.1998 and show cause as to why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of Court by disobeying the order dated 30.4.1998 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14887 of 1997, Committee of Management, National Inter College and another v. D.I.O.S., Mau and others. In case the opposite parties comply with the aforesaid order dated 30.4.1998, they need not to appear in person.
List on 4.8.1998."
4. In pursuance of this order dated 19.5.1998, notices were issued to the present, contemners 1 and 2 in this contempt petition. After the transfer of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, contemner No. 1, she was succeeded by Kamla Ram, who was impleaded in this contempt petition as contemner No. 3. After it, Kamla Ram too was transferred and he was succeeded by Jagannath Ram and consequently, Jagannath Ram was impleaded as contemner No. 4. Thereafter Jagannath Ram was also transferred and was succeeded by Sri Munna Prasad Verma, consequently Sri Munna Prasad Verma was impleaded as contemner No. 5 in this contempt petition.
5. First of all, we take up the case of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava. She was served with the notice in pursuance of the order dated 19.5.1998 by Hon''ble Bhagwan Din, J. The contempt notice was delivered to the Accountant Satya Vir Singh in her office as District Inspector of Schools on 30.7.1998. This service has been held sufficient in this case. Despite this notice, she has neither complied with the said order of stay aforesaid of the High Court nor cared to appear in person or even through counsel on the date fixed or on any subsequent dates to which the contempt case was adjourned from time to time. The fact that the photostat copy of the stay order was communicated to her by the present petitioners is established beyond doubt by the letter dated 13.5.1998. Annexure-9, sent by her to the Branch Manager, Joint Regional Gramin Bank, Indrea, Mau. In regard to this document, the assertion from the side of the petitioners in the affidavit of petitioner No. 2 cannot be doubted for a moment. If a photostat copy of the order of High Court was shown to her, she has no reason to suspect the genuineness of the same and if she doubted it, she could call upon the petitioners to produce before her a certified copy of the order of the High Court. The other ground taken in the letter, Annexure-9, that ten days period has elapsed and a copy of the stay order of the High Court has not been made available to her by registered post, is a lame excuse. It was not practically possible to enforce the delivery of registered letters promptly within a certain deadline. She has not come forward to state on oath before this Court as a fact that no such copy of the stay order of the High Court has been received by her or in her office by registered post uptil the date of this letter, Annexure-9. Even if we take this assertion in this letter at its face value, it is no excuse for not complying the stay order of High Court. It is settled law that in order to justify action for contempt of court for breach of a prohibitive order, it is not necessary that the order should have been officially served on the party against whom it is granted. If it is proved that he has notice of the order aliunde and he knew that it was intended to be enforced, it is enough. Official communication is not a condition precedent, provided there is no valid reason to doubt the authenticity of the order conveyed to him. If an authority is needed in this behalf, it is available in
6. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava is a responsible person, being a Gazetted Officer in the district and if she had any doubt in her mind, she could get the fact of the stay order verified by different means. The fact that she did not come forward to offer an explanation of her conduct shows beyond doubt that she had nothing to say. It is certainly an established case of wilful disobedience of the stay order of the High Court aforesaid. Her conduct shows disrespect of dignity and authority of the High Court. It is not a mere inaction or indifference but a positive act of disrespect to and defiance of the order of the High Court, come-what-may. Defying the order of the High Court, she had issued a positive direction to the Bank to make payment of the salary of the staff of the institution with the signatures of Ram Prasad Singh as Manager. Thus it is a case of gross contempt on her part. So far as she is concerned, she never challenged the stay order of the High Court by moving a stay vacation application before the High Court in the writ petition though she was holding the office of District Inspector of Schools. Mau and as such a party to the writ petition. Therefore, at all events in so far as the District Inspector of Schools Smt. Madhuri Srivastava is concerned, the stay order of the High Court was in full force on the date when she wrote the above noted letter. Annexure-9, to the Branch Manager of the Bank.
7. In view of the above discussion, she must be held guilty of having committed gross civil contempt of the High Court Allahabad by wilful and deliberate disobedience of the stay order dated 30.4.1998 passed by Hon''ble B. Dikshit, J., in the writ petition aforementioned from which this contempt case has arisen which is punishable u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A severe sentence is called for in the circumstances but the fact that Smt. Madhuri Srivastava is a woman, being taken into consideration. I am of the view that she may be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand only) which she may deposit within a month from the date of order and in case of failure to do so, she ought to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
8. In the absence of categorical material or communication of a stay order to contemner Nos. 3 and 4, Sri Kamla Ram and Jagannath Ram, the successive District Inspector of Schools. Mau and their conduct in relation thereto, it cannot be held that they have committed wilful disobedience of the aforesaid stay order of the High Court. So the notices to them need to be discharged.
9. Coming to Munna Prasad Verma, the present District Inspector of Schools, Mau contemner No. 5. He has filed successive affidavits one after the others in this petition. The first affidavit was dated 19th September, 1999 in which he appears to support the stand of the alleged Committee of Management whose manager Ram Prasad Singh. Contemner No. 2 claims himself to be and also disclosed his intention to file counter-affidavit in the writ petition and to place on record the relevant factor the Committee of Management of the institution and to move for vacation of the interim stay order aforesaid. In the second affidavit also which was dated 8.12.1999, he claims to be taking the steps for filing counter-affidavit in the writ petition side by side with the plea that he had no knowledge of the stay order of the High Court before the service of notice of the present contempt petition. He pointed out in it that he was posted at his present place of posting in June. 1999 only and that the stay order of the High Court was of the earlier period. However, in this second affidavit, in para 9 he categorically undertook to ensure the compliance of the interim order dated 30.4.1998 passed in a Writ Petition No. 14887 of 1998 within forty eight hours and to inform the Court about the compliance of the stay order even if the stay vacation is not heard and disposed of. In pursuance of this undertaking, he passed an order on 10.12.1999 in which it was said that in compliance of the interim order dated 30.4.1998 in Writ Petition No. 14887 of 1998, he directed single operation of the joint account of the National Inter College Adari Indara, Mau stating that thenceforth the joint account shall be operated with his signatures tilt further orders of the High Court. He has endorsed the copies of this letter to the Accounts Officer of his office and to the Branch Manager, Joint Regional Gramin Bank Adari Indara. A copy of this order was initially filed before this Court on 13.12.1999 with the affidavit of one Vijai Narain Pandey. Thereafter, he filed his own supplementary counter-affidavit on 15.12.1999 before this Court annexing a copy of the said order dated 10.12.1999 passed by him in compliance of the interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 of the High Court. In this affidavit, it was stated in the last paragraph of the affidavit that he did not disobey the order of the High Court wilfully or deliberately and hence the proceedings for contempt against him may be dropped. However, after that, he has filed his further affidavit dated 17th December; 1999 in which he threw himself at the mercy of the Court and tendered his unconditional apology. He has also appeared in person on 8.12.1999 and 17.12.1999 and he has also undertaken to personally appear today and now there \\s nothing to show that he is still overtly or covertly implementing or acting upon the recognition contained in the order dated 8.4.1998. Thus this Court is now satisfied that he genuinely feels repetent and has now passed the said positive order in compliance of the interim stay order of the High Court dated 30.4.1998. Under these circumstances, I feel inclined to accept his unconditional apology.
10. Now we are coming to the case of contemner No. 2 Ram Prasad Singh. In his counter-affidavit dated 16.11.1999. he has styled himself as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution and has taken a number of pleas. He has made a number of averments about the merits of the case in the writ petition which it is unnecessary to mention being beyond the scope of these contempt proceedings. Then he has taken the plea that he filed a caveat application but the present petitioners manipulated in the office so that the office did not report the caveat on the writ petition and succeeded in obtaining the ex parte order dated 30.4.1998. This plea is also beyond the scope of his defence in these contempt proceedings. The petitioners have cited an authority of the Apex Court in the case of
11. The other plea of this contemner No. 2 is that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of the interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 inasmuch as they did not take the steps within the period of ten days as directed therein. It is claimed that the copy of the writ petition was not served upon Ram Prasad Singh, contemner or respondent No. 3 Managing Committee in the writ petition within the period allowed by the said stay order dated 30.4.1998. This plea is factually net correct because the petitioners in this contempt petition have shown that due steps were taken within the time stipulated in the stay order dated 30.4.1998, if ten days time was given for taking the steps, it plainly meant that it was the upper limit within which steps could and must be taken at any time. Steps by registered post were taken by the petitioners well in time, so that the registered letters were sent in the name of Ram Prasad Singh contemner No. 2 on 8.5.1998. It was a compliance well within time as is evident from Annexure-5 to the affidavit of petitioner No. 2. Furthermore, the petitioner No. 2 has filed Annexure-6 with his affidavit which is photostat copy of the receipt issued under Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules about the steps taken by the petitioners for respondents 2 and 3 of the writ petition on 1.5.1998. So it was compliance on the date immediately following the date on which the interim stay order was passed by the High Court, The affidavit of petitioner No. 2 also shows that steps were also taken about service on respondent No. 2 Kamla Ram. District Inspector of Schools by registered post. So it cannot be said that the present petitioners have failed to take necessary steps in terms of the stay order dated 30.4.1998. So the question of the stay order dated 30.4.1998 lapsing on account of such non-compliance, does not arise.
12. Then another plea taken by contemner No. 2 Ram Prasad Singh is that on the expiry of three weeks from the date of filing of counter-affidavit by him (i.e., this contemner) before the High Court in the writ petition aforesaid the interim order dated 30.4.1998 lapsed in view of the mandatory provision of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. Article 226(3) of the Constitution runs in the following words :
"(3) Where any party against whom an interim order whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause 1, without :
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order, and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open ; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period or as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated."
As a matter of fact, there is a similar provision in the Allahabad High Court Rules in Chapter XXII, Rule 1 (1) second proviso.
13. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for this contemner on a Division Bench authority of this Court in the case of Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of U. P. 1997 ACJ 308 delivered by Hon''ble B.M. Lal, J., and myself on the subject in which it was said in para 14 :
"In this regard, we may point out that the provision of sub-clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India have taken care of and if within the period of two weeks from the date on which application for vacating stay is received in the office of the Registry and the same is not placed before the Court, the ex parte stay order automatically stands vacated after expiry of two weeks'' period. Thus, the provisions of sub-clause (3) of Article 226 in respect of vacating interim order is automatic after expiry of two weeks from the date on which the application is received in the office and by the petitioner."
In that authority, it was also said in para 16 :
".....In this respect we may observe that within the statutory period stipulated in sub-clause (3) of Article 226 if the application is not being placed before the Court in time, a duty is cast upon the party who had obtained ex parte order to take active steps to get the matter listed before the Court within the specified period soon after copy of the application for vacating stay is received, and if he does not do so, he can do so at his own peril in view of mandate in Article 226(3) and the serious consequences envisaged therein. Therefore, the petitioner as well as the Registry both must get the matter considered by the Court immediately, and if that is not done within the stipulated period, the petitioner cannot escape the liability by pointing out that the Registry has failed to list the case in Court. In case 14 days are likely to expire and the registry has failed to list the case, the counsel for the petitioner can bring this fact to the notice of the Court and get the petition listed, immediately because this constitutional mandate admits of no exception."
14. There is another authority on the point in the case of Ram Ashish Ram v. Security Officer and another AIR 1991 (18) 24 very fairly brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners in which also Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India was applied and it was said that in case, even for any unavoidable reason, the application for vacating stay order is not decided, the stay order shall stand vacated, by operation of law. The learned counsel has, however, pointed out that in this authority, it was said that in such a case, the counter-affidavit with stay vacation application ought to be filed within a reasonable time, which will be a very relevant circumstance in considering such matter as to whether the respondents have approached the Court within reasonable time and that he cannot be allowed to flout the order of Court by not implementing the same inspite of knowledge and to apply for vacating the Stay order after long delay and that such an attempt shall not be in good faith.
15. I have come across two single Judge authorities of Lucknow Bench of this Court which have taken note of the practical difficulty in the matter of disposal of stay vacation applications. One of such authorities was the case of Ashiq Ali v. Mohd. Shakeel and others 1985 (3) LCD 362 in which Hon''ble K.N. Misra. J. observed as follows :
"In my opinion, the said order dated 12.7.1985 did not automatically stand vacated because on the next date of listing, i.e., 7.8.1985, the case was not taken up for hearing as Hon''ble D.N. Jha, J. before whom the case was listed in the cause list, had not held Court. The entire cause list listed before Hon''ble D.N. Jha. J. stood adjourned. The effect of it would be that the ad interim order dated 12.7.1985 with regard to stay is to continue till next date of listing."
16. The other authority was Ram Abhilakh Misra v. Cane Commissioner and others 1996 LCD 734. In that case, the view taken in the case of Ashiq Ali was followed and it was observed :
"I have given my anxious consideration to this aspect of the matter and am of the view that a judicial order continues until and unless the same is vacated or not extended on the case being taken up. It shall not lapse of its own when the case though shown in the dally cause list but is not taken up by the Court. Everybody about 50-60 or more cases are listed in the daily cause list but only extremely urgent cases on the request of the counsel are taken up and the rest of the cases are not even called out due to lack of time. In these circumstances, merely because the order, was not extended by passing another judicial order, it cannot be said that even in absence of any order being passed by the Court the interim order earlier passed lapses automatically."
17. The present is an anomalous case, here the copy of the present writ petition and stay application accompanying it were delivered to the chief standing counsel of the U. P. State on 24.4.1998 itself, the date on which the writ petition was filed meaning thereby that the writ petition and the affidavit annexed thereto along with its annexures and also the stay application came to the hands of the standing counsel for U. P. State who was to appear for the District Inspector of Schools respondent No. 1 in the writ petition on 24.4.1998 and that he had ample opportunity to go through the same and to obtain necessary Instructions in the matter of this case before 30.4.1998 on which date the writ petition came up before the learned single Judge for admission and orders on the stay application. We have already reproduced verbatim the interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the learned single Judge which shows that the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned standing counsel appearing for the D.I.O.S. the respondent No. 1 were both heard before passing the interim order and the learned standing counsel sought and was allowed three weeks'' time for filing counter-affidavit.
18. There is another hard fact in this case that the learned standing counsel never moved a stay vacation application nor filed any counter-affidavit and that the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition, namely Sri Kamla Ram, District Inspector of Schools, was sent a notice by registered post. Sri Kamla Ram, respondent No. 2 in the writ petition was transferred from his post but somebody or the other remains occupying the post of District Inspector of Schools and the office was continuously represented by the learned standing counsel yet no stay vacation application or counter-affidavit was ever filed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau or by the standing counsel on his behalf at any stage. Consequently, there is no question of the interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 getting automatically vacated since no stay vacation application or counter-affidavit was ever moved from the side of the District Inspector of Schools, whose order dated 8.4.1998 was stayed by the learned single Judge by his order dated 30.4.1998. It may be stated that the order dated 8.4.1998 had useful consequences for the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition (Committee of Management through Ram Prasad Singh) and, therefore, the interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 did adversely affect the rights of the respondent No. 3 of the writ petition (Committee of Management through Ram Prasad Singh, alleged Manager). So there can be no denial that this respondent No. 3 of the writ petition had a right to move the Court for vacation of the stay order dated 30.4.1998 but that does not mean that if this committee moved such an application and the same was not disposed of within the period of two weeks from the date a copy of the stay vacation application and the counter-affidavit moved by the respondent No. 3, the stay order dated 30.4.1998 would stand vacated under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. Such an anomalous situation has not been contemplated in Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and so the sub-clause (3) is in my opinion, not applicable to be present case. So this plea of the learned counsel for the contemner No. 2 is untenable and has to be rejected.
19. Another plea of the learned counsel for contemner No. 2 Ram Prasad Singh is that the contempt proceedings cannot be proceeded with because the stay vacation application was pending. Reference has been made to the following authorities :
(1) State of J. and K. v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1166.
(2) Dharmesh Chandra v. Mulayam Singh Yadav 1990 (3) UPLBEC 1707.
(3) Raj Ranjan v. V. s. Vasudewan and another, (1995) 3 UPLBEC 1472.
20. In the case of Mohd. Yaqoob Khan (supra), a decree was modified by a compromises between the parties and thereafter in the writ petition an ex parte interim order was passed by the High Court for issue of notice for a date and also in the meantime for giving 50% of the timber by the Government in accordance with this compromise and in regard to this positive direction, it was argued that there was no time indicated for the compliance of the direction and the interim direction in the case was of such a nature that in substance, it was final order allowing the writ petition in part and the Apex Court found force in the argument of the counsel for the contemner State of J. and K. and in that case, the Apex Court felt that it was a serious question if the petitioner of the writ petition was entitled to maintain the writ petition itself and that the interim order passed by the High Court was itself premature and it was observed that the High Court should have first taken up the stay matter without any threat to the respondents in the writ case of being punished for contempt and thereafter to proceed to consider the question of contempt. There was another Supreme Court authority
21. It has also been argued for the petitioners that in the present ,case the interim ex parte order cannot be called premature or inappropriate, that no stay vacation application was moved by the District Inspector of Schools at any stage and that though the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition did file the stay vacation application, it was filed with inordinate delay.
22. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the following authorities :
(1)
(2) Anand Kumar Pandey v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava (1995) 3 UPLBEC 1459.
(3)
(4)
23. In the circumstances of the present case, all the discussion on this point becomes academic for the simple reason that the stay vacation application moved in writ petition by respondent No. 3 Ram Prasad Singh (who is the alleged Manager and who is contemner No. 2 in the present contempt petition) was heard on merits and now by an order dated today, the said stay vacation application has been rejected and the said interim order has been confirmed till the final disposal of the writ petition. So now this interim stay order has to be complied with, by all concerned.
24. Before I conclude the matter, I may make a passing reference to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the contemner No. 2 Ram Prasad Singh at the resumed hearing of the arguments in this contempt case on 10.12.1999 that I had no jurisdiction to hear this contempt case on merits because on 15.11.1999 and 3.12.1999, this case was listed in Court No. 47 under the heading ''For orders''. This argument ought never to have been advanced. Firstly, on 15.11.1999 and also on 3.12.1999 the jurisdiction of the Court was mentioned at the top in the following words'' Fresh in Civil contempt for Orders, Admission and Hearing including 482, Cr. P.C. for hearing and so there was no question of absence of jurisdiction for hearing in the contempt cases listed on the dates. Further on 17.11.1999 the learned counsel present for the parties were ready to argue the case on merits and did argue in full on 17.11.1999 itself as is clear from the order sheet dated 17.11.1999 and the case was fixed for delivery of orders on 24.11.1999. On 24.11.1999. it was felt necessary by me to look into the record of the miscellaneous writ petition from which this contempt petition arose and for that reason the record was ordered to be summoned and 3.12.1999 was fixed for further hearing to the knowledge of parties counsel and so it was immaterial that on 3.12.1999 the case was listed by the listing department in the cause list under the heading ''for orders''. The order sheet dated 3.12.1999 indicates that on the prayer of Sri K. S. Kushwaha learned counsel for this contemner, the hearing of this case was passed over and postponed to 6.12.1999 and on that date, the case was ordered to be kept unlisted along with the writ petition itself and on 8.12.1999, it was postponed to 9.12.1999 on which date 10.12.1999 was fixed for further arguments and on that date the further arguments were concluded and after that a date (13.12.1999) was given for filing of further affidavit of another contemner, namely, contemner No. 5 and after that the case was taken up on 13.12.1999 and further arguments were heard after the filing of an affidavit on behalf of contemner No. 5 and 17.12.1999 was fixed for delivery of orders. On 17.12.1999 the orders were fixed to be delivered on 21.12.1999 in this case and consequently there was no question of any lack of jurisdiction at any stage. Therefore, the plea of learned counsel for this contemner is rejected.
25. To sum up. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, contemner No. 1, is held guilty of having committed gross contempt of Court by deliberately and wilfully disobeying and flouting the interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 14887/98 and is accordingly convicted u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand only). The fine shall be paid by her within a period of one month from today and in default of payment of fine, she shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. For compliance of this order, the office of the High Court shall send a notice to her along with a copy of this order requiring her to deposit the fine within the time permitted.
26. In regard to contemner No. 5, Munna Prasad Verma, his unconditional apology is accepted and the notice given to him is hereby discharged.
27. Since in regard to contemner Nos. 3 and 4. Kamla Ram and Jagannath Ram and contempt by them is not established, the notices given to both of them are hereby discharged.
28. In regard to contemner No. 2, Ram Prasad Singh, now since his stay vacation application has been rejected today on merits in the writ petition itself, he is directed to comply with the aforesaid interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the High Court in the writ petition aforesaid within a month from today and to appear in person on 24.1.2000 before the appropriate Bench dealing with contempt matters and disclose on affidavit in what manner he has complied with the interim stay order dated 30.4.1998 or show cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt of Court u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
29. List on 24.1.2000 for further orders before the appropriate Bench dealing with contempt matters.
