JAMMU, Aug 9: High Court today expressed displeasure over non-implementation of judgment which was passed more than a decade back.
After hearing Advocate S K Anand in a contempt petition, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed, “before a formal Robkar in the matter is framed, the counsels appearing for the Commissioner Secretary, Revenue and Commissioner Secretary, GAD are directed to give the names and addresses of all those persons who have remained as Commissioner Secretary, Revenue and Commissioner Secretary, GAD right from the year 2004 till date”.
“The court perused the compliance reports filed on behalf of the Commissioner Secretary, Revenue and Commissioner Secretary, GAD, which reflect that the judgment passed by this court on 11.07.2002 and upheld by the Division Bench on 08.10.2003 has not been complied within letter and spirit”, Justice Kumar said, adding “the judgment has remained unimplemented even after the lapse of 16 years”.
“The compliance report filed by the GAD reflects that a different yardstick was adopted while implementing the judgment passed in favour of the petitioners whereas a different order was passed in the case of the petitioners in SWP No. 691/1982”, the High Court said, adding “the judgment in the case of the petitioners in SWP No. 691/1982 was implemented in the year 2004, whereas the judgment passed in the case of petitioners in this contempt petition has not been implemented even after the lapse of more than 16 years”.
“This clearly exhibits contumacious conduct of the respondents. The petitioners have been made to wait to reap the fruits of the judgment passed in their favour by the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench more than a decade ago which speaks volume about the manner in which the respondents are treating the orders passed by this court”, Justice Kumar said, adding “this is not the isolated case but a trend has been noticed that the respondents have no respect for the orders of this court”.
“Time has come to act tough lest the Rule of Law will fail resulting into anarchy. Constitutional democracy, as we are, cannot afford such state of affairs”, High Court observed.