(1) Vs. State of U. P  INSC 590 (20 November 1994)
have heard learned counsel on both sides on I.A. No. 5 (In Contempt Petition
No. 97 of 1992 in W.P. (C) No. 977 of 1991).
Venugopal submitted that the State Government is second to none in its anxiety
to ensure the enforcement of the orders of this Court. He stated that as there
are ongoing parleys amongst the various groups for settlement, 752 any
contemplation of immediate coercive action on the part of the Government might,
according to him, be counter- productive. The State Government would be able to
spell out its programme of action to ensure obedience by about the end of this
month when it will be able to know or reasonably anticipate the possible
outcome of the parleys.
think it is also necessary for the Union Government to indicate its stand in
the matter so that we may have its assistance in making such orders as would
ensure enforcement of the earlier orders of this Court. We, therefore, direct
Attorney General/Solicitor General to be present in Court at 2.00 p.m. on Monday, the 23rd November, 1992.
Gobinda Mukhoty and Shri Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner-complainant, expressed serious concern over the developing situation
and sought to recollect what happened in the month of July 1992, where,
according to them, adjournments were taken advantage of to present the
petitioners with a fact accompanied. We appreciate the concern expressed by
learned counsel. At the same time, we request all the learned counsel to serve
to shed an adversarial approach in the matter and assist the Court in a way
which will not disturb social equilibrium.
List the matter on Monday,
the 23rd November, 1992,
at 2.00 p.m.