Orders Rs 10,000 be paid for flouting court directions
TEAM HERALD
teamherald@herald-goa.com
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay in Goa pulled up top ranking government officials for flouting court directions, ordering that costs of Rs 10,000 be paid, the amount to be recovered from the officers responsible for not complying with the orders. The court also wanted an inquiry to be held as to who was responsible for non-compliance of the said orders of the Court and costs recovered from them.
The order said that the PWD officers had shown that they can flout the orders of the Court “with impunity and they are under impression that they can get away by not complying with the orders and by giving frivolous reasons for non-compliance.”
Stating that ample opportunity and time was given by the Court to comply with the said orders, “No reply even has been filed by the respondents, on oath, till today.”
The order was given after the petitioner, a Junior Stenographer in the office of the Principal Chief Engineer, PWD, Goa had to come to this Court on three occasions seeking her dues from the Government. On earlier two occasions, two Division Benches of the Court had passed specific directions directing the respondents to release her salary, after allowing her petitions, the first order being dated 21/3/2005 in Writ Petition No. 269/201 and the second order being dated 4/1/2010 in Writ Petition No. 781/2008, with the court pointing out that “…till today, these orders have not been complied with.”
Stating that “in our view,” “this is a clear case where the respondents have, prima facie, committed a contempt of this Court,” the court has directed “the office to issue contempt notices under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to: (1) Ms Madhura Naik, Deputy Director (Administration), PWD, Goa, and Gurudas Potekar, Director of Accounts, …” asking as to why action should not be taken against them for not implementing the orders passed by this Court and “…why they should not be punished and convicted under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and in misinterpreting the orders passed by this Court 14 WP 822-12 dated 21/3/2005 in Writ Petition No. 269/201 and dated 4/1/2010 in Writ Petition No. 781/2008.”
The oral order by Justice VM Kanade and Justice UV Bakre states:
The chronology of events clearly reveals that in spite of two orders being passed by this Court, the respondents have not complied with the order dated 21/3/2005 in Writ Petition No. 269/201 and the order dated 4/1/2010 in Writ Petition No. 781/2008, “which are binding on the respondents and it is not open for the Accounts Department to sit in appeal over an order which is passed by this Court.” Stating that the attitude of the respondents’ officers ~ PWD as well as Accounts Department ~ is deplorable and despicable and such attitude has to be deprecated and an appropriate action, therefore, will have to be taken against them for deliberately and willfully not complying with the orders passed by this Court, the court pointed out that the PWD Officers “had an audacity to question the correctness of the order dated 21.3.2005 passed the Division Bench headed by Dalveer Bhanadari, Chief Justice as He then was.”
The order was passed in 2005, directing that the petitioner should be treated as Junior Stenographer. Officers of the Accounts Department and PWD, while sitting in appeal over the orders passed by the Chief Justice, have questioned the wisdom of this Court in directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Stenographer, when, in fact, the said order was confirmed by the Principal Chief Engineer, PWD.
“This attitude clearly reflects the mindset of these officers of deliberately and willfully not complying with the orders of this Court only with an intention to harass the petitioner and even with an intention to make her to run from pillar to post, despite she having obtained two orders in her favour,” the order stated adding, “A complete callous approach on the part of the PWD and Accounts Officers is reflected from the fact that even after the petitioner exercised her option, after the Division Bench passed the order in 2010, and the bills were sent by the PWD in February, 2010, the salary and arrears of the petitioner have not been released till date” while rejecting the defence Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents will have to be rejected.
The court ordered to comply with this order within four weeks from today.
