2011 INSC 0127
                             SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                        Abdul Gani Bhat

                                                Vs.

                       Chairman, Islamia College Governing Board

                              SLP(C) Nos. 1995-1996 of 2006

                       (G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly JJ.)

                                           25.01.2011

                                             ORDER

These applications have been filed by the petitioner seeking initiation of contempt
proceedings against the alleged contemnors.

The petitioner had challenged order dated 21.11.2005 passed by the Division
Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in LPA No. 200/2005 by filing
Special Leave Petition Nos.1995- 1996 of 2006, which was disposed of by this
Court on 24.3.2006 by recording the following order:

"Heard the petitioner, who is appearing in-person.

It has been submitted that the petitioner wants to argue his case in person in LPA
No.200 of 2005, which is pending in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at
Srinagar. If such a prayer is made before the High Court, we have no doubt the
same shall be considered and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear in- person.
The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of."

In these I.As., the applicant has claimed that the aforesaid order was defective
inasmuch as LPA was not pending before the High Court. He has then averred that
when the order passed by this Court was placed before the High Court through IA
(C) LPWA No. 326/2006, the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of the
High Court by making derogatory observations against him and a cost of
Rs.5,000/- was imposed. Thereafter, he filed Contempt Petition Nos. 86-87/2009
which were dismissed on 22.1.2010 on the ground that even though various

Law Information Center  1  SpotLaw
allegations had been levelled against the contemnor, no prayer was made against
him.

We have heard Shri Abdul Gani Bhat, who appeared in person and carefully
perused the record. In our view, there is no valid ground much less justification for
initiating proceedings against the respondents because a similar prayer made by
him in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.86-87 of 2009 has already been rejected.

The applications are accordingly dismissed.

Law Information Center  2  SpotLaw