High Court of DelhiCONT.CAS(C)/434/2018

Renu Mishra v. Rajeev Garg & ANR

2018-05-30Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao2 pages

$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 434/2018 RENU MISHRA ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms. Sheetal Mishra and Mr. Varun Mishra, Advs.

versus RAJEEV GARG & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Hari Shankar Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 30.05.2018 CM. No. 23628/2018 (for exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

CONT.CAS(C) 434/2018 This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of order dated December 22, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) 11556/2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents have passed an order dated March 8, 2018 stating no representation dated May 8, 2013 has been received in the Lady Hardinge Medical College. He states, the said stand is incorrect for the reason that in terms of communication of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India dated December 1, 2016, the Director of the Lady Hardinge Medical College was directed to dispose of the representations of the petitioner. That apart, he submits that the

petitioner had also made a representation on January 13, 2018 bringing to the notice of the Director of Lady Hardinge Medical College about the orders passed by this Court.

On the other hand, Ms. Amrita Prakash, learned CGSC who appears for the respondents on advance notice states, respondents do not have the said representation in their records.

Without going into the issue whether the respondents have received the copy of the representations including the one dated May 8, 2013, I deem it appropriate to direct the counsel for the petitioner to hand over the copy of the representations including the one dated May 8, 2013 to the learned counsel for the respondents by tomorrow. On receipt of the same, respondents shall pass a speaking order in terms of the directions given in order dated December 22, 2017 within three weeks with a communication to the petitioner within the same period. If no order is passed within three weeks, petitioner shall be at liberty to revive the contempt petition. The contempt is closed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MAY 30, 2018/jg