Achan Rizvi (1) Vs. State of U. P [1994] INSC 590 (20 November 1994)

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

ORDER

1. We 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).

2. Shri 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.

3. We 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.

4. Shri 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.

5. List the matter on Monday, the 23rd November, 1992, at 2.00 p.m.

 Back