Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties,
we are of the view that having regard to the directions which had been
passed by this Court on 13th March, 2007 in Civil Appeal No.1329 of 2007,
an application for contempt would not really lie. In our said order, we had
directed the appellant to consider the representation made by the
respondents in the said proceedings, in accordance with law, in the manner
indicated in the order itself.
However, it is the case of the petitioner before us, that
the said order was not complied with in letter and spirit and relying on the
same documents which had earlier been relied upon, the alleged
contemnor/opposite parties have once again decided the matter against the
petitioner.
Mr. Mukherejee, learned counsel appearing in support of the
contempt petition submits that since the earlier documents had been
considered in the earlier proceedings and discarded, the authorities ought
not to have relied on the same while disposing of the petitioner's
representation in terms of the directions given by us earlier.
While appreciating the submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee, we
still are unable to hold that any contempt has been committed, and, on the
other hand, it is always open to the petitioner to move a fresh writ
application against the decision of the concerned authority/alleged
contemnor/opposite parties. In the event, such application is filed, the
petitioner will be entitled to take all these points which have been taken in
the contempt petition and having regard to
the circumstances, the CAT should take steps to ensure that the application
is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In addition to what has been
mentioned hereinabove, we make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter, and it will be open to the Tribunal to
decide the same.
The contempt petition is disposed of.
New Delhi, December 15, 2008.