http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SH. VIJAY SINGH, SECRETARY HOME & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MITTANLAL HINDOLIYA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996 Present:                Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy                Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik      Prashant  Kumar   and  S.K.Agnihotri,   Advs.  for  the appellants  Dr.I.B.Gaur, Adv. for the Respondent                          O R D E R      The following Order of the court was delivered:     Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arise  from the order in the contempt  proceedings dated  August 1,  1995 made by the Madhya  Pradesh   Administrative  Tribunal   at  Indore   in Miscellaneous Application No.99 of 1994.      The  admitted  position  is  that  the  respondent  was appointed as  a Sub-Inspector  in the  Police Department  on January 1,  1960 and  his date  of birth  in the High School Certificate was  August  5,  1934.  In  1992,  he  filed  an application in  the Tribunal  for correction  of his date of birth contending  that his  date of birth was July 16, 1938. The Tribunal  by order  dated February  25, 1994 disposed of the  application   with  a   direction   to   consider   the representation of  the respondent.  The  representation  was considered and  rejected by  proceeding dated  May 23, 1994. Consequently, the  respondent filed  a contempt  application contending   that   the   appellants   have   wilfully   and deliberately disobeyed  the order of the Tribunal and sought for initiation  of the  proceedings against  the  appellants under Section  12 of  the Contempt  of  Court  Act.  In  the impugned order,  the Tribunal  has held  that the respondent has not  deliberately disobeyed  the orders  of the court as direction was  to consider  the case  afresh on  the finding that the Director General of Police had not applied his mind to the  issue and  therefore the  impugned order  came to be issued. The  question is : whether the Tribunal was right in its  giving  directions?  It  is  seen  that  the  Assistant Inspector  General  of  Police  who  is  the  Administrative Officer assists  the  Administrator,  namely,  the  Director General of  Police. He  had put  up the note on it and after consideration of  it the Director General of Police had made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

a   note   "inform   the   respondent".   Obviously,   after consideration of  the case he did not agree wit the claim of the respondent  and accepted  the report  submitted  by  his subordinate, viz.,  Assistant Inspector  General of  Police. Thus, it  would be  a case where due consideration was given to the  respondent’s representation  as per  the  directions given by  the Tribunal.  The Tribunal  having held  that the respondent has  not deliberately  disobeyed the order, there is no power to issue further directions.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  direction are set aside. No costs.