advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, February 28, 2014

Contempt petition - violating the interim order given in respect of sharing of MBBS AND BDS ETC, between private medical college and State government quota - private colleges made excess admissions - tendered unconditional apology - Apex court held that The excess 107 admissions made by the Medical College for the MBBS during the year 2011-12 and the previous year, be adjusted in the session 2014-15 in full taking note of the full sanctioned strength and the balance seats be adjusted in the year 2015-16. The unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the contemnors is accepted, but the contemnors are directed to pay a fine of Rs.50 lakhs in two months from today, to the State Government. Ordered accordingly =State of M.P. & Anr. … Petitioners Versus Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya & Ors. … Respondents = 2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41270

Contempt petition - violating the interim order given in respect of sharing of MBBS AND BDS ETC, between private medical college and State government quota - private colleges made excess admissions - tendered unconditional apology - Apex court held that The  excess  107
admissions made by the Medical College for the MBBS during the year  2011-12 and the previous year, be adjusted in the session  2014-15  in  full  taking note of the full sanctioned strength and the balance seats  be  adjusted  in the year 2015-16.  The unconditional and  unqualified  apology  tendered  by the contemnors is accepted, but the contemnors are directed to  pay  a  fine
of Rs.50 lakhs in two months from today, to the State Government.    Ordered
accordingly =

whether the contemnors have violated  the  interim  orders  passed  by  this
Court on 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 4060  of  2009  in  the
matter of sharing of MBBS  seats  between  the  respondent  private  medical
college and the State Government. =

 We have already pointed out that the contemnors earlier  took  up  the
stand that, after notifying their institution as a  University  on  4.5.2011
under the Private University Act,  2007,  the  AFRC  Act  ceased  to  apply,
hence, they are not bound by the orders passed by this  Court.    Contemnors
cannot take refuse under a notification issued under  a  Statute  to  defeat
the interim orders passed by this Court which are binding  on  the  parties,
unless varied or modified by this Court.   In  the  instant  case,  all  the
appeals in which interim orders have been passed, are  pending  before  this
Court and if the contemnors had any doubt  on  the  applicability  of  those
orders, they could have sought clarification or modification of  the  order.
 Now, by tendering unconditional and  unqualified  apology,  the  contemnors
are trying to wriggle out of the possible  action  for  Contempt  of  Court,
after  violating  the  orders  causing  considerable  inconvenience  to  the
students and after enjoying the  fruits  for  the  illegality  committed  by
them.   It is trite law that apology is  neither  a  weapon  of  defence  to
purge the guilty of  their  offence;  nor  is  it  intended  to  operate  as
universal panacea, it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness.  (See
M.Y. Shareef & Anr. v. Hon’ble Judges of the High Court  of  Nagpur  &  Ors.
(1955) 1 SCR 757 and M.B.  Sanghi,  Advocate  v.  High  Court  of  Punjab  &
Haryana & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 600.

16.   Contemnors have now tendered  unconditional  and  unqualified  apology
and volunteered to set right the  illegality  committed  by  them,  but  the
purpose for flouting the orders has been achieved, that  is  the  contemnors
wanted to fill up the entire seats by themselves.   Therefore,  to  maintain
the sanctity of the orders of this Court and to  give  a  message  that  the
parties  cannot  get  away  by  merely  tendering   an   unconditional   and
unqualified apology after enjoying the fruits of their  illegality,  we  are
inclined to impose a fine, which we quantify at Rs.50 lakhs.

We, therefore, order that the admission of students  under  the  State
quota for the academic year 2011-12 in Medical College is  valid  and  legal
and appropriate steps should be  taken  by  the  State  Government  and  the
Medical Council of India to  regularize  the  admission.    The  excess  107
admissions made by the Medical College for the MBBS during the year  2011-12
and the previous year, be adjusted in the session  2014-15  in  full  taking
note of the full sanctioned strength and the balance seats  be  adjusted  in
the year 2015-16.  The unconditional and  unqualified  apology  tendered  by
the contemnors is accepted, but the contemnors are directed to  pay  a  fine
of Rs.50 lakhs in two months from today, to the State Government.    Ordered
accordingly.

21.   The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly.


 2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41270
B.S. CHAUHAN, K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, S.A. BOBDE

                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       ORIGINAL CONTEMPT JURISDICTION
                  CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.390 OF 2011
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.4060 OF 2009

State of M.P. & Anr.                         … Petitioners
      Versus
Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya & Ors.           … Respondents

                               J U D G M E N T
K.S. Radhakrishnan

1.    We are,  in  this  contempt  petition,  concerned  with  the  question
whether the contemnors have violated  the  interim  orders  passed  by  this
Court on 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 4060  of  2009  in  the
matter of sharing of MBBS  seats  between  the  respondent  private  medical
college and the State Government.

2.      Civil   Appeal   No.   4060   of   2009   was   preferred   by   the
respondents/contemnors herein, challenging the judgment of  the  High  Court
of Madhya Pradesh dated 15.5.2009, which upheld the validity of  the  Madhya
Pradesh (Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee) Act, 2007 (for short  “AFRC
Act”), empowering the State Government to fill all the seats (including  the
NRI seats) in  all  the  education  institutions  in  the  State  of  Madhya
Pradesh, including private medical  and  dental  collages.    Since  serious
disputes were raised with regard to seat sharing and fixation  of  quota  of
seats for MBBS/BDS, this Court felt that some interim arrangement should  be
made taking note of the interest of both the parties and also  that  of  the
students.  This Court, therefore, as an interim measure, passed an order  on
27.5.2009 in C.A. No.4060 of 2009 and the connected appeals, which reads  as
follows:

           “We, therefore,  direct  that  the  admissions  in  the  private
      unaided medical/dental colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh will be
      done by first excluding 15% NRI seats (which can be filled up  by  the
      private institutions as per para 131 of Inamdar case),  and  allotting
      half of the 85% seats for admission to  the  undergraduate  and  post-
      graduate courses to be filled in by an open competitive examination by
      the State Government, and the remaining half by the Association of the
      Private Medical and Dental Colleges. Both the State Government as well
      as the Association of Private Medical and Dental  Colleges  will  hold
      their own separate entrance examination for this purpose.  As  regards
      “the NRI seats”, they will be filled as provided under the Act and the
      Rules, in the manner they were done earlier.


             We make it clear that the aforesaid  directions  will  for  the
      time being only be applicable for this Academic Year  i.e.  2009-2010.
      We also make it clear that if there are an odd number of seats then it
      will be rounded  off  in  favour  of  the  private  institutions.  For
      example, if there are 25 seats, 12 will be  filled  up  by  the  State
      Government and 13 will be filled up  by  the  Association  of  Private
      Medical/Dental Colleges. In specialities in PG courses also  half  the
      seats will be filled in by  the  State  Government  and  half  by  the
      Association of Private Medical/Dental Colleges and any  fraction  will
      be rounded off in favour of the Association. In other words if in  any
      discipline there are, say, 9 seats, then 5 will be filled  in  by  the
      Association  and  the  remaining  4  will  by  the  State  Government.
      Capitation fee is prohibited, both to the State Government as well  as
      the private institutions, vide para 140  of  Inamdar  case.  Both  the
      State  Government  and  the  Association  of  Private   Medical/Dental
      Colleges will separately hold single window examinations for the whole
      State (vide para 136 of Inamdar case).


             We make it clear that the solution we have arrived at  may  not
      be perfect, but we have tried to do our best to find out the best  via
      media. Although this order is only for  Academic  Year  2009-2010,  we
      recommend that it may also be considered for future sessions.


              Six weeks’ time is allowed for  filing  counter-affidavit  and
      four weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder.


             List these appeals for final hearing in September 2009. In  the
      meantime, pleadings may be completed by the parties.”




3.    The interim arrangement made continued  in  the  subsequent  years  as
well and in the year 2011-2012, this Court vide its  order  dated  27.1.2011
in I.A. No. 50 of 2011 passed the following order:
       “The order dated 27th May, 2009 made in Civil  Appeal  No.  4060  of
       2009 etc. shall be applicable for the academic year 2011-2012.

          There shall be an order accordingly.”

4.    This contempt petition has been preferred by the State Government  and
the Director of Medical Education Department alleging  that  the  contemnors
have filled up the entire  150  seats  available  for  the  year  2011-2012,
without sharing it with the State Government, violating the orders  of  this
Court dated 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011.    Petitioners  pointed  out  that  the
contemnors had sent a letter dated 23.5.2011 stating that  they  would  fill
up the entire seats during the academic year 2011-2012 since their  colleges
would  be  functioning  under  the  Madhya  Pradesh   Niji   Vishwavidyalaya
(Sthapana Avam  Sanchalan) Adhiniyam, 2007  [for  short  “Adhiniyam  2007”],
consequent to the establishment of the Peoples’ University  under  M.P.  Act
No.18 of 2011 and the admission process of  those  constituent  institutions
would be governed by the statutes and ordinances  framed  under  the  above-
mentioned Act.   The State  Government  noticing  the  stand  taken  by  the
contemnors, wrote a letter dated 14.7.2011 to the Managing Director  of  the
Medical College stating that the admissions have to be made  only  following
the arrangement made by this Court vide order dated 27.1.2011  and,  if  any
change has to be made, the same could be done only with  the  permission  of
this Court.

5.    The Directorate of Medical Education  of  the  State  Government  also
wrote a letter dated 14.7.2011 to the Medical Council  of  India,  informing
the Council of the defiant attitude taken by the contemnors  by  not  giving
admission to any of the  students  included  in  the  State  quota  for  the
academic year 2010-11.

6.    The Directorate of Medical Education  then  wrote  a  detailed  letter
dated 8.8.2011 to the Secretary, Association of  Private  Dental  &  Medical
Colleges, in the State, specifically referring to the interim  order  passed
by  this  Court  on  27.1.2011  reminding  them  of  the  necessity  of  the
compliance of the Court’s directions in the matter  of  seat  sharing.   The
contemnors, ignoring those letters, published an advertisement  in  a  local
newspaper “People Samachar” on 9.8.2011 informing the public that 150  seats
would be available  with  them  for  admission  to  MBBS  course  under  the
management quota for the year 2011-12.

7.    The Directorate of Medical Education, in the meanwhile,  sent  a  list
of 66 students under the State quota to the Medical  College  for  admission
to MBBS course.  The contemnors refused to admit those  students  under  the
State quota and the State Government received several  complaints  from  the
students who were included in the State  quota,  but  not  admitted  by  the
contemnors. The State Government then sent a notice dated 17.8.2011, to  the
Dean of the Medical College to show cause why the following  action  be  not
initiated against the college:-
      (a)   withdraw the Desirability and Feasibility Certificates issued in
           favour of the college;


      (b)   report the matter to  the  Medical  Council  of  India  to  take
           suitable action against the college.


      (c)   report the  matter  to  the  concerned  authorities  for  action
           against Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha  (Pravesh
           Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007.


8.    The contemnors, in total defiance of the Court’s order as well as  the
various directions issued by the Directorate of  Medical  Education,  filled
up the entire 150 seats in the management quota for the academic year  2011-
12.

9.    The students, who figured in the  State  quota,  then  approached  the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh.   The High Court directed  the  contemnors  to
admit students who were included in  the  State  quota.  Consequently,  they
admitted those students and the number of students admitted in  the  College
went up to 245 as against the sanctioned strength of 150 seats. The  Medical
College does not have the infrastructural facilities to admit 245  students,
which  has  adversely  affected  the  academic  standards  of  the  students
admitted.   The  State  Government,  as  also  the  Directorate  of  Medical
Education, in the above-mentioned circumstances, approached this  Court  and
filed the present Contempt Petition for taking  appropriate  action  against
the contemnors for violating the orders passed by this  Court  on  27.5.2009
and 27.1.2011 and also by not complying with the various  directions  issued
by the State Government as well as the Directorate of Medical Education.

10.   When the matter came up for hearing, this Court issued notice  to  the
contemnors. Learned senior counsel appearing for the  contemnors,  submitted
before  this  Court  on  3.2.2014  that  they  would  be   tendering   their
unconditional and unqualified apology for their actions and made a  proposal
to set right the illegalities committed, which reads as under :-
      (a)   None of the 245 students admitted in the Institution  –  Peoples
           College of Medical Sciences (PCMS) during the academic year 2011-
           12 shall be disturbed and they all will continue to pursue their
           course without any interruption. This would include the students
           allotted by the State who had been given provisional  admissions
           pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.


      (b)   In the academic session  2011-12  on  the  basis  of  the  50-50
           admissions between the College and State after 15% NRI quota  is
           deducted as per the orders of  this  Hon’ble  Court,  the  State
           entitlement filled in by the  institution  was  63  seats.   The
           institution shall accordingly surrender 21 seats in each of  the
           following three academic years i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17
           to the State government to be filled in  through  the  procedure
           laid down in the order dated 27.5.2009.

11.   The contemnors on 13.2.2014, filed  a  written  note  wherein,  after
reiterating the proposals submitted on 3.2.2014, they stated as follows :
      “13.  Though admissions have already been made by  the  State  against
      the said 63 seats for the year 2011-12 in the said year  itself  still
      in deference to the orders of this Hon’ble  Court  the  Respondent  is
      willing to give up the said 63 seats. It is however requested that  if
      these 63 seats are adjusted only in one year, the college would suffer
      adversely.  Therefore, the Respondent again humbly submits that it  be
      permitted to surrender  21  seats  in  each  of  the  following  three
      academic years i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 as  submitted  before
      this Hon’ble Court on 3.2.2014 to the State Government to be filled in
      through the procedure laid down in the order dated 27.5.2009.


      14.   It is respectfully submitted  that  in  the  captioned  contempt
      petition of the Petitioner State only relates  to  its  50%  quota  of
      admissions i.e. 63 seats in the academic year 2011-12.


      15.   The respondents reiterate the proposal submitted on 3.2.2014 and
      again tender  an  unconditional  and  unqualified  apology  for  their
      actions.”

12.   In  the  written  note  filed  by  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  on
13.2.2014, in  response  to  the  submissions  made  by  the  contemnors  on
3.2.2014, the State of Madhya Pradesh stated as follows :-
      “20.  For the academic session 2011-12, the  State  Government  had  a
      quota of 107 students :-


               • 63 seats as per the 50:50 order of this Hon’ble Court.


               • 42 seats as per letter dated 19.9.2011 of MCI since Peoples
                 College made excess admissions in 2010-11.


               • 2 seats which were not filled in the NRI quota.


      21.   The aforesaid position of  State  quota  seats  for  2011-12  is
      explained in detail in the  letter  of  MCI  dated  5.3.2012  (annexed
      herewith as Annexure A-1).


      22.   For the academic session 2011-12


           Total sanctioned strength               150


           Total seats filled by College           245


           College authorized to fill                43


           State quota seats filled by College       95


           Excess seats filled by College          107

      23.   The issue of excess admissions made by  the  College  is  to  be
      considered as per the Regulations framed by the MCI under  the  Indian
      Medical Council Act, 1956 and the submissions made by the MCI in  that
      regard.


      24.   However, if the scheme formulated  by  the  Peoples  College  is
      considered by this Hon’ble Court, then the excess 107 admissions  made
      by the College in 2011-12 be adjusted in the  session  of  2014-15  in
      full and remaining seats be adjusted in 2015-16.


      25.     On   account    of    illegal    and    unlawful    acts    of
      Respondents/Contemnors,  not  only  the  State  Government,  but   the
      students of the State quota, who were illegally denied admissions were
      severely harassed and were drawn on a long  drawn  legal  battle  with
      uncertainty of their respective careers.”


13.   We have no hesitation in saying that  the  above  situation  has  been
created by the contemnors themselves by filling up of the entire  150  seats
in total defiance of the interim orders passed by this  Court  on  27.5.2009
and 27.1.2011 making an interim arrangement for  seat  sharing  between  the
State Government and the private  educational  institutions  from  the  year
2009-10 onwards in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which  are  binding  on  the
contemnors.   The contemnors  attempted  to  justify  their  action  on  the
ground that they are regulated by the  Private  Universities  Act  and  that
AFRC Act has ceased to apply and, after  the  notification  dated  4.5.2011,
the State Government has no right even to share seats in their  institution,
de hors the interim orders passed by this Court.   This stand taken  by  the
contemnors  is  also  not  correct,  since  Section  7(m)  of  the   Private
University Act, 2007 provides that admission shall not be started  till  the
concerned statutes and ordinances are approved as  per  Section  35  of  the
Act, which states that the statutes and ordinances  shall  come  into  force
only upon publication in the official Gazette.  Even otherwise,  once  there
is an order in force binding on the parties, they cannot violate  or  ignore
that  order,  taking  shelter  under  a  statutory  provision  and  if   any
modification of the orders is  warranted,  parties  should  have  approached
this Court and sought for clarification or  modification  of  those  orders.
However, without doing so, in total defiance of the orders  passed  by  this
Court, they filled up the entire seats, leaving the students who figured  in
the State list in the lurch.   Later,  though  they  were  admitted  in  the
College having the infrastructure for accommodating only  150  students,  it
has affected the quality and standard of medical  education.   After  having
convinced that they had violated the orders of this Court,  they  have  come
up  with  an  unconditional  and  unqualified  apology   and   making   some
suggestions to undo the illegality committed by them after eating  away  the
seats from the State quota.

14.   We have, on facts, found that there has been  a  willful  disobedience
by the contemnors of the orders passed by this Court, which is  nothing  but
interference with the administration of justice.  Disobedience of  an  order
of a Court, which is willful, shakes the very  foundation  of  the  judicial
system and can erode the faith and confidence reposed by the people  in  the
Judiciary and undermines rule of law.    The  Contemnors  have  shown  scant
respect to the orders passed by the highest Court of the land  and  depicted
undue haste to fill up the entire seats  evidently  not  to  attract  better
students or recognize merit, but possibly to make  unlawful  gain,  adopting
unhealthy practices, as noticed by this Court in TMA Pai Foundation  &  Ors.
v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2002) 8  SCC  481  and  various  other  cases.
Once the Court passes an order, the parties to the  proceedings  before  the
Court cannot avoid implementation of that order by seeking refuge under  any
statutory rule and it is not open to the parties to  go  behind  the  orders
and truncate the effect of those orders.  This Court in T.R.  Dhananjaya  v.
J. Vasudevan (1995) 5 SCC 619,  held  that  once  the  Court  directed  that
appeal be disposed of after giving  him  opportunity  of  hearing  and  such
direction was not appealed from, it is not open to the  concerned  authority
to deny the hearing on the ground that the Police Manual  does  not  provide
for the same.  This Court in Mohd. Aslam alias Bhure, Acchan Rizvi v.  Union
of India (1994) 6 SCC 442 held that circumvention of  an  order  can  be  by
‘positive  acts  of  violation’  or  ‘surreptitious  and  indirect  aids  to
circumvention and violation of orders.  In the instant case,  the  violation
is a positive act of violation,  which  is  apparent  on  the  face  of  the
record.

15.   We have already pointed out that the contemnors earlier  took  up  the
stand that, after notifying their institution as a  University  on  4.5.2011
under the Private University Act,  2007,  the  AFRC  Act  ceased  to  apply,
hence, they are not bound by the orders passed by this  Court.    Contemnors
cannot take refuse under a notification issued under  a  Statute  to  defeat
the interim orders passed by this Court which are binding  on  the  parties,
unless varied or modified by this Court.   In  the  instant  case,  all  the
appeals in which interim orders have been passed, are  pending  before  this
Court and if the contemnors had any doubt  on  the  applicability  of  those
orders, they could have sought clarification or modification of  the  order.
 Now, by tendering unconditional and  unqualified  apology,  the  contemnors
are trying to wriggle out of the possible  action  for  Contempt  of  Court,
after  violating  the  orders  causing  considerable  inconvenience  to  the
students and after enjoying the  fruits  for  the  illegality  committed  by
them.   It is trite law that apology is  neither  a  weapon  of  defence  to
purge the guilty of  their  offence;  nor  is  it  intended  to  operate  as
universal panacea, it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness.  (See
M.Y. Shareef & Anr. v. Hon’ble Judges of the High Court  of  Nagpur  &  Ors.
(1955) 1 SCR 757 and M.B.  Sanghi,  Advocate  v.  High  Court  of  Punjab  &
Haryana & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 600.

16.   Contemnors have now tendered  unconditional  and  unqualified  apology
and volunteered to set right the  illegality  committed  by  them,  but  the
purpose for flouting the orders has been achieved, that  is  the  contemnors
wanted to fill up the entire seats by themselves.   Therefore,  to  maintain
the sanctity of the orders of this Court and to  give  a  message  that  the
parties  cannot  get  away  by  merely  tendering   an   unconditional   and
unqualified apology after enjoying the fruits of their  illegality,  we  are
inclined to impose a fine, which we quantify at Rs.50 lakhs.

17.   We may now examine how the illegality committed by the contemnors  can
be rectified.  For the academic year 2011-12, the State  Government’s  quota
was 107 seats, details of which is given below :-
         • 63 seats as per the 50:50 order of this Hon’ble Court.


         • 42 seats as per letter dated  19.9.2011  of  MCI  since  Peoples
           College made excess admissions in 2010-11.


         • 2 seats which were not filled in the NRI quota.


18.   The total sanctioned strength for the academic year  2011-12  was  150
students, but the contemnors had filled up 245  seats,  though  the  college
was authorized to fill up only  43  seats.   The  contemnors  filled  up  95
seats, which would have gone to the State quota.  Consequently,  107  excess
seats were filled up by the college.  The contemnors, however, took  up  the
stand that if 63 seats are to be adjusted  for  the  academic  year  2014-15
that may seriously affect  the  functioning  of  the  College,  hence  their
suggestion is that they will compensate the lost seats in a  phased  manner,
that is 21 seats in the year 2014-15 and the rest  in  equal  proportion  in
the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, which we find difficult to accept.    We  are
of the view that the excess of 107 admissions made in the year 2011-12  have
to be adjusted by adjusting the same for the  academic  session  2014-15  in
full and remaining seats be  adjusted  in  the  year  2015-16,  because  the
illegality committed must be set right  at  the  earliest.   This  Court  in
Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 2  SCC  65,  held
(Direction No.11) as follows :
      “11. If any private medical college in a given academic year  for  any
      reason grants admission in its  management  quota  in  excess  of  its
      prescribed quota, the management quota  for  the  next  academic  year
      shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in
      the management quota in the previous academic year.”



19.   We may reiterate that the above-mentioned situation has  been  created
by the contemnors themselves and due to their illegal and unlawful acts,  by
admitting students over and above the sanctioned strength, the students  who
were later admitted from the list of State quota, could not get the  quality
medical education, which otherwise they would have got. Further,  they  were
also driven  to  unnecessary  litigation  before  the  High  Court  creating
uncertainty to their future.

20.   We, therefore, order that the admission of students  under  the  State
quota for the academic year 2011-12 in Medical College is  valid  and  legal
and appropriate steps should be  taken  by  the  State  Government  and  the
Medical Council of India to  regularize  the  admission.    The  excess  107
admissions made by the Medical College for the MBBS during the year  2011-12
and the previous year, be adjusted in the session  2014-15  in  full  taking
note of the full sanctioned strength and the balance seats  be  adjusted  in
the year 2015-16.  The unconditional and  unqualified  apology  tendered  by
the contemnors is accepted, but the contemnors are directed to  pay  a  fine
of Rs.50 lakhs in two months from today, to the State Government.    Ordered
accordingly.

21.   The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly.

                                                              ……..……………………J.
                                        (Dr. B.S. Chauhan)

                                                              ……..……………………J.
                                        (K.S. Radhakrishnan)




                                                              ……..……………………J.
                                        (S.A. Bobde)
New Delhi,
February 27, 2014.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.