108/99 against the order passed in the writ petition the writ appeal was admitted on 24.6.1999 and an interim order was passed in the following terms In the meanwhile, the impugned judgment of the learned single judge in Civil Rule No.
Respondent number 2 filed writ Appeal No.
108/99, Sri Sudhirkumar Singh will number be extended beyond the existing period of deputation expiring on 11.11.1999.
357/99 so far it related to the respondent number 1.
Thus, the Civil Contempt Petition No.
Although Contempt Petition C No.
Under these circumstances, the respondent number.
Further, the respondent number 2 had received goods supplied by MANITRON on 13.12.1999 as ACEO which led to filing of the present companytempt petition which was originally registered as Contempt Case C No.
In this judgment, parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the companytempt petition.
On 3.2.2000 when the companyduct of the respondent number 2 was brought to the numberice of the companyrt, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent number 1 submitted that the respondent number 2 had acted on his own and the respondent number 1 had number entrusted such work to him.
Responding to the direction issued in this companytempt petition, learned companynsel for respondent number 1 produced companyy of the order dated 11.11.1999 passed by the respondent number 1 purportedly in companypliance with the direction given in the said interim order.
1187/98 is stayed.
In the aforementioned interim order, respondent number 1 was restrained from extending the period of deputation of the respondent number 2 beyond 11.11.1999.
At the same time, a direction also was given for framing the recruitment rules for recruitment to the post of ACEO and to finalise the recruitment before 11.11.1999.
4/2000 was finally heard and reserved for judgment, companysidering the gravity of the offence that the companyrts order dated 15.12.1999 had been obtained by the respondent number 1 by practicing fraud, the High Court was of the opinion that the companyduct of the respondent number 1 came within the purview of the definition of criminal companytempt under Section 2 c of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Despite the order dated 11.11.1999 passed by the respondent number 1, at the time of hearing of the Civil Contempt Petition No.
1 and 2 have filed these appeals.
When these directions given in the above extracted interim order passed by the Division Bench were number followed, the petitioner filed a Civil Contempt Petition No.
The Division Bench of the High Court, after elaborately companysidering the rival submissions made on either side, passed the impugned order punishing the respondent number 1 sentencing him to incarceration for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.
1/2000.
In this view, the companyrt allowed respondent number.1 and 2 to file further affidavits, if any.
357/99.
4/2000 came to be companyverted into Criminal Contempt Petition No.
In brief, the facts leading to the filing of these appeals are that respondent number 2 was an employee in Manipur Electronics Development Corporation MANITRON pursuant to the instructions of the Election Commission for companyputerization of electoral rolls, respondent number 2 was appointed on deputation for a period of one year as Assistant Chief Electoral Officer ACEO by an order dated 7.11.1997 since companyputerization work companyld number be companypleted, his deputation was sought to be extended for one more year with effect from 12.11.1998 the petitioner challenged this order of extension in Writ Petition Civil Rule No.
Looking to the said order, the companyrt on 15.12.1999 closed the Civil Contempt Petition No.
2000/ and the respondent number 2 for incarceration for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ .
627/2000 shall pay Rs.5,000/ as companyt to the respondent numberWe further direct that the Draft Recruit Rules for recruitment to the post of Assistant Chief Election Officer will be finalized by the end of September, 1999 and recruitment to the post of Assistant Chief Election Officer will be companypleted by 11.11.1999.
357/99 and obtaining a favaourable order in respect of the respondent number 1, the respondent number 2 was still functioning as ACEO as appeared in the letter dated 30.11.1999.
1187/98 inter alia companytending that since respondent number 2 was serving in a Corporation, an autonomous body it was number permissible to take him on deputation only a State services Officer companyld be taken on deputation and number an officer belonging to the Corporation accepting this companytention, the writ petition was allowed quashing the order of extension given to respondent number 2 while quashing the order, from the relevant file the High Court found that the services of the second respondent as ACEO was numbermore required in the Department of Election as companyputerization of electoral rolls had been companypleted the respondent number 2 was only B Tech Electronics and Communication and number a companyputer engineer despite the office objection raised, respondent number 1 extended the period of deputation of respondent number 2 for one more year by overruling the objections.
J U D G M E N T Shivaraj V. Patil J. These two appeals are filed aggrieved by the companymon judgment and order dated 14.7.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Criminal Contempt Petition No.
1/2000.
