Inordinate delay in implementing court order tantamounts to contempt
High Court Division
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Md Ashfaqul Islam J
Md Ashraful Kamal J
Abul Kalam Azad (Md)………………….Contempt- Petitioner
vs
Dewan Zakir Hossain and others ……. Contemnor-Respondents
Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926)
Sections 2 and 3
Observations-Inordinate delay of in implementing the positive order of this Division is unpardonable and tantamounts to contempt of court. It would be expected that sense will prevail upon the contemnor and in future they shall never repeat this sort of disobedience of the court’s order. Failure of which would be severely dealt with a dire consequence.
Md Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate-For the Petitioner.
Tofailur Rahman, Advocate-For the Contemnor Respondents.
Judgment
Md Ashfaqul Islam J: At the instance of the petitioner this Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the contemnor-respondents to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt of court shall not be commenced against them for non-implementation of the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 4-5-2005 passed by this Division in Writ Petition Nos. 7987, 8050 of 2002, 2648, 1331, 236, 2957 of 2003.
2. In the ordering portion of the judgment of the Writ Petition for the non-compliance of which the instant Contempt petition has arisen their Lordships observed as under:-
“The petitioners shall get usual salary and other benefits from the date of their reinstatement.”
3. The said judgment was passed back in the year 2005 but all these days the contempt-petitioner moved from pillar to post to get the judgment implemented failing which he moved this Contempt petition.
4. Mr Md Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Advocate for the contempt-petitioner with all his vehemence tried to impose upon us that the flagrant defiance of the mandamus and directive of this Division passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition by the contemner-respondents for implementing the same has shaken the proper functioning of the administration of justice and rule of law in a given situation.
5. He further submits that in the meantime, many of the petitioners have retired who could not benefit themselves out of the judgment.
6. Highlighting all these Mr Khan, concludes that though late but eventually the contemner-respondents have implemented the order passed in the Writ petitions and complied with the same in its’ entirety and under the situation he has clear instructions of his client not to proceed with the Rule.
7. Before parting we would like to record that the inordinate delay of this kind in implementing the positive order of this Division is unpardonable and tantamounts to contempt of court. We fully agree and endorse the submission of the learned Advocate Mr Khan to that effect. We give him all the kudos. It would be expected that sense will prevail upon the contemner-respondents and in future they shall never repeat this sort of disobedience of the court’s order. Failure of which would be severely dealt with a dire consequence.
Accordingly, the Rule is discharged for non-prosecution. The contemnor-respondents are hereby exonerated from the proceeding of Contempt of Court.
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Md Ashfaqul Islam J
Md Ashraful Kamal J
Abul Kalam Azad (Md)………………….Contempt- Petitioner
vs
Dewan Zakir Hossain and others ……. Contemnor-Respondents
Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926)
Sections 2 and 3
Observations-Inordinate delay of in implementing the positive order of this Division is unpardonable and tantamounts to contempt of court. It would be expected that sense will prevail upon the contemnor and in future they shall never repeat this sort of disobedience of the court’s order. Failure of which would be severely dealt with a dire consequence.
Md Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate-For the Petitioner.
Tofailur Rahman, Advocate-For the Contemnor Respondents.
Judgment
Md Ashfaqul Islam J: At the instance of the petitioner this Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the contemnor-respondents to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt of court shall not be commenced against them for non-implementation of the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 4-5-2005 passed by this Division in Writ Petition Nos. 7987, 8050 of 2002, 2648, 1331, 236, 2957 of 2003.
2. In the ordering portion of the judgment of the Writ Petition for the non-compliance of which the instant Contempt petition has arisen their Lordships observed as under:-
“The petitioners shall get usual salary and other benefits from the date of their reinstatement.”
3. The said judgment was passed back in the year 2005 but all these days the contempt-petitioner moved from pillar to post to get the judgment implemented failing which he moved this Contempt petition.
4. Mr Md Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Advocate for the contempt-petitioner with all his vehemence tried to impose upon us that the flagrant defiance of the mandamus and directive of this Division passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition by the contemner-respondents for implementing the same has shaken the proper functioning of the administration of justice and rule of law in a given situation.
5. He further submits that in the meantime, many of the petitioners have retired who could not benefit themselves out of the judgment.
6. Highlighting all these Mr Khan, concludes that though late but eventually the contemner-respondents have implemented the order passed in the Writ petitions and complied with the same in its’ entirety and under the situation he has clear instructions of his client not to proceed with the Rule.
7. Before parting we would like to record that the inordinate delay of this kind in implementing the positive order of this Division is unpardonable and tantamounts to contempt of court. We fully agree and endorse the submission of the learned Advocate Mr Khan to that effect. We give him all the kudos. It would be expected that sense will prevail upon the contemner-respondents and in future they shall never repeat this sort of disobedience of the court’s order. Failure of which would be severely dealt with a dire consequence.
Accordingly, the Rule is discharged for non-prosecution. The contemnor-respondents are hereby exonerated from the proceeding of Contempt of Court.