Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
1. Miscellaneous application No. 2326/2019 is allowed. Short counter affidavit as filed by respondent no. 2 is taken on record.
2. The petitioner has presented this contempt petition on 10.2018, contending disobedience of the judgment dated 09.2018, as passed in Writ
Petition No. 3254 of 2018 (S/S) ‘Bhajan Singh vs. Director Youth Welfare and Others’. This Court vide its judgment dated 20.09.2018 had
disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
“Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation within ten days from today. If such a
representation is made, the Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar shall examine the petitioner’s claim and pass a speaking and reasoned
order, within a period of six weeks thereafter.
Let a certified copy of this order be issued within 24 hours.â€
3. It was contended in the writ petition that copy of this order was served on the Chief Education Officer on 28.09.2018, by registered post but the
order was not complied with following the pleading of the contempt petition and argument of the counsel for the petitioner to be true. On account of
non-compliance of the order, the notice was issued by this Court to the Chief Education Officer on 02.01.2019, but there was no response filed by the
Chief Education Officer, District Udham Singh Nagar. Under that pretext this Court on 26.02.2019 had directed the personal appearance of the Chief
Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, directing him to appear in person for the purposes of framing of the charge under the Contempt of Courts
Act. In compliance thereto, the Chief Education Officer is present before this Court.
4. It has been stated by the Chief Education Officer by presenting the copy of the decision/order dated 16.10.2018, through Deputy Advocate General
Mr. H.M. Raturi, whereby, it is stated that in-compliance of the judgment dated 20.09.2018, the representation of the petitioner stood rejected on
16.10.2018, and the decision was communicated to the petitioner by the registered post. The copy of this order had been sent to the petitioner by
registered post on 19.10.2018, the postal receipt of which was produced by the Chief Education Officer before the Court, which shows that the
registered letter along with the decision dated 16.10.2018 was addressed to the petitioner. This fact has not been pleaded or revealed in the pleadings
of the contempt petition, which was filed thereafter on 21.12.2018 and has been deliberately concealed. To ensure as to whether the copy of this order
was served on the petitioner or not, the Chief Education Officer, who is present before this Court in the pre-lunch session, was directed to seek the
necessary instructions from the post office from where the registered letter was send to the petitioner as to whether the letter thus registered on
19.10.2018 was served on the petitioner by the postal department. The post office from where the Chief Education Officer, Rudrapur, had send the
decision dated 16.10.2018 to the petitioner and from there the information, which has been received by the Chief Education Officer as informed to this
Court is that, he is informed that the decision dated 16.10.2018 as send by registered post on 19.10.2018 infact had been received by the petitioner and
had been served upon him by the postal department. Even before filing of the contempt petition on 21.12.2018 and thereafter the receipt of the order
dated 16.10.2018, the contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance of the judgment dated 20.09.2018.
5. This is a deliberate perjury and a concealment of material fact from being brought to the knowledge of the Court, if the contempt court is conscious
of ensuring compliance of its order. The Court is also simultaneously conscious to take an appropriate action against those petitioners, who mislead the
Court to get an order in their favour. Particularly, in the instant case where it is admitted by the petitioner that the copy of the order dated 16.10.2018
as passed by the Chief Education Officer in compliance of the High Court’s directives was received by the petitioner. In that eventuality, this
Court is avoiding to take any stringent action against the petitioner except of imposing a heavy cost of Rs.50,000/- for concealment of material fact
and forcing the officer to attend the Court proceedings despite of compliance of the judgment leaving aside his official work. This amount of
Rs.50,000/- would be deposited by the petitioner in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of the Bar Association within one month from today.
6. Contempt petition thus stands closed. Notices issued on 2.01.2019 to the respondent would stand discharged.
7. Registry is directed to ensure that deposit of cost as directed above to be made by the petitioner and proof of deposit is placed before him, lest
failing which the matter be placed before the Court for further necessary action or directions.
