The respondent has further stated that the Special Judge himself in his judgment dt.
5605/95 on 28.7.1995.
There is also numberadmissible and reliable record to show whether the pages were actually removed.
27.12.2001 on which the petitioner relies, has given a specific finding to the effect So there is numbermaterial on record to show when the papers were removed, whether before 10.07.1993 or after 10.07.1993 and before 12.07.1993, and who removed it.
Relying on this Observation of the Special Judge wherein it is stated that there is numbermaterial to show whether the removal of papers was done before 10.7.1993, the respondent companytends that there is a possibility of the tampering if at all has taken place, having taken place even prior to the undertaking given by the learned companynsel for the State of Tamil Nadu to this Court which was on 28.7.1995 a date subsequent to 10.7.1993 referred to by the learned Judge.
The respondent has filed a reply to the above companytempt petition and in the said reply he has stated that when the State of Tamil Nadu had given an undertaking in the civil appeal all documents relating to the case were in possession of the Energy Department which is the successor department to the Public Work Department and the respondent had numberhing to do with the same.
Santosh Hedge, J. This Contempt Petition was filed alleging disobedience of an undertaking given by the State of Tamil Nadu in CA No.
