Judgment:
CON.C.No.1797/2011 06.11.2012 Shri Umesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
This contempt petition is directed alleging disobedience of order dated 06.05.2010 in W.P.No.4388/2010 by which the following directions were issued:- "7.
In this view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Singh versus State of M.P.and others (supra).this writ petition stands finally disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The petitioner may file a fresh representation to respondent No.2 claiming the benefit under the scheme of Green Card Holder.
(ii) Respondent No.2 on receipt of the aforesaid representation shall consider and decide the same expeditiously as early as possible within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation in the light of the order of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Singh (supra) and it it is found that petitioner No.1 is entitled for the benefit, the said benefit shall be extended to him forthwith and the amount deposited by the petitioner on 2/2/2008 and 26/3/2008 shall be refunded to him within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order, failing which the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization."
Respondents have filed reply and stated that the case of the petitioner was considered and as per the policy prevailing on the date of operation of the mother of the petitioner i.e.23.07.2003, the petitioner was not found entitled for exemption from tuition fees as family of the petitioner was not under B.P.L.list.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was decided in the light of previous judgment of the High Court in the case of Ashutosh Singh v.
State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.8360/2009, in which there was no such condition.
But considering the order, it is found that the aforesaid condition was inserted on 13.05.2003 and in view of subsequent events, no case is made out for initiating contempts proceedings against the respondents.
The proceedings are closed.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the aforesaid order before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Judge psm