Dir Tourism skips court in contempt case, prefers basking in Bangalore
Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir High court on Friday issued bailable warrant against Director Tourism, Kashmir for violating court orders in a contempt petition.
The court directed registrar judicial to issue bailable warrant to the amount of Rs 20,000 to seek personal appearance of Director Tourism on the next date of hearing.
The court also directed SSP, Srinagar to execute the warrant who in case fails to execute the warrant shall appear before court on the next date of hearing.
Direction was also passed to secretary tourism to explain as to how he has deputed the officer to attend an event in Bangalore without seeking his exemption in advance when he knew that the officer has to appear in the court on December 29.
“In case the secretary fails to explain the position he shall also remain present in the court, “the court said.
The court further said, “In terms of order dated November 28, 2017, the court while considering the contempt matter had derived the satisfaction that the Director Tourism, Kashmir had prima facie committed the contempt of court, therefore, rule was directed to be framed against him to show cause as to why he shall not be punished for contempt of court order.
He was directed to remain present today before the court but today he was not present citing the reason that for boosting tourism he has been asked by Chief Minister to attend a campaign at Bangalore.
“The Director Tourism, Kashmir was well aware of the court orders and for seeking exemption from court proceedings he didn’t inform the court. So, Director Tourism is liable for punishment,” Justice Magrey remarked. “In order to ensure strengthening of the faith and confidence of the public in judicial system, with other protections, to preserve the dignity and honour of the court, it has become necessary to seek appearance of Director Tourism by adhering to the coercive method,” the court said.
The court had directed Director Tourism to consider the case of the petitioner-Mohammad Toyyab Leharwal for his adjustment against the post in question on the analogy of other candidate and take a decision thereon within a period of one month.
Instead of implementing the court judgment, the director in its reply appears to have discussed the entitlement of the petitioner with reference to the post being 100 percent direct recruitment post and to be filled up on the recommendation of SSB.
The Court also has noted that Director Tourism had no authority to discuss the entitlement of the petitioner with reference to the method of recruitment provided for filling up the post when this court, had already on consideration of the matter had directed him to adopt the analogy of other candidate and adjust the petitioner against the post in question.
“It was beyond the authority of Director, Tourism to reject the claim of the petitioner on a ground which was not available to him in strict terms of the judgment. The final order passed by this court had not made the adjustment of the petitioner conditional having reference to his eligibility in accordance with rules but had in categorical terms asked him to follow the analogy adopted”, Justice Magrey said.