Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

6 yrs on, HC accepts apology tendered by IAS officer

Contempt case involving Atta-Dal Scheme

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

More than six years after IAS officer Shivdular Singh Dhillon and Bathinda Food Controller Jaspreet Singh Kahlon were sentenced “till the rising of the court” following conviction in a contempt case involving the much-hyped Atta-Dal Scheme, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has accepted unconditional apology before setting aside the orders.

Advertisement

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma at the same time asserted the delay in executing the court’s directives explained in an earlier affidavit was characteristic of the state government’s usual trend of shifting files between the departments, compelling litigants to file contempt petitions.

Advertisement

The Bench asserted the state unnecessarily sought legal opinions causing further delays, despite clear and unambiguous court orders not requiring review or appeal.

“In the present case also the affidavit explaining delay shows the movement of file from one person to the other, which further shows that the file is unnecessarily moved for legal opinion of the compliance. This action amounts to contempt in the present case,” the court observed.

The Bench added an unconditional apology was tendered by the appellants on February 9, 2017, and again vide affidavit dated April 20, 2017. “Therefore, we find merit in the present appeal and set aside the orders dated February 1, 2017, and February 12, 2018, passed by the Single Judge while accepting the apology tendered by the appellants,” the court added.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement