SrinagarThe Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Friday issued a bailable warrant of arrest against director tourism for committing contempt by violating its orders regarding adjustment of a person against an available post of Junior yatchman in the department.
On November 28, while considering the contempt matter had observed that Director Tourism Department 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.
The Director Tourism was also directed to remain present on December 29 but he has chosen not to appear instead filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance.
In an application filed before the court, he stated that in order to boost tourism in the State and to counter the disinformation campaign, the Chief Minister has started conducting of road shows in many states of the country and in this regard, all the stakeholders and officers connected with the tourism trade have been asked to accompany the chief minister for the campaign.
It was stated in the plea that in view of the emergent nature of the situation, the director has already reached Bengaluru to ensure necessary arrangements for the tourism events well in advance and as such he will not be in a position to attend the court hearings.
Admittedly, the respondents (secretary tourism and director tourism) were having the knowledge of the order before one month but are not avoiding appearance or also delaying the implementation of the court judgment dated 01 March 2016, therefore, in terms of settled position of law, they have further committed contempt of the Court, a single bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey observed.
One fails to understand as to why should the officers of the State choose to avoid an appearance in the court of law when required and instead choose to attend other events in and outside the State.
Does it form a ground for an officer to seek exemption when he was already knowing it well that he has to appear before the Court of law, the court asked.
(Director tourism) has not sought permission of the Court in advance before he could go to attend the event. Same is position of Secretary to government Tourism Department even who too was knowing it in advance that (the director) in the contempt matter has to appear before the Court. Ordinarily, the courts are liberal in granting exemption on sufficient grounds, but in view of the approach adopted by respondents, it is question mark (?) as to why should an officer seek exemption and avoid appearance.
The court observed that the government has choice to send other officer of equal rank and status working in the Department of Tourism to attend the National event. e.g., (incumbent director) is reportedly a KAS officer holding the post of Director Tourism Kashmir and his counterpart is an equivalent officer working as Director Tourism, Jammu why should the Secretary Tourism depute the Director Tourism Kashmir that too when is required to appear in a court matter and not Director Tourism or any other officer. Seemingly, the Secretary to Govt Tourism Department too has primafacie opted the line of avoiding appearance and showing disrespect to the court orders.
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 respondent director tourism by adhering the coercive method, the court said.
Registrar Judicial to issue bailable warrants in the amount of Rs.20,000 to seek personal appearance of (director tourism) on the next date of hearing. Warrants shall be executed by SSP, Srinagar who in case fails to execute the warrant shall appear on the next date of hearing, the court said and posted the case on January 29.
Secretary Tourism Department shall explain on affidavit as to how he has deputed the officer to attend an event without seeking his exemption in advance when he was knowing that the Officer has to appear in the court on 29.12.2017, the court said, adding, In case the Secretary fails to
explain the position he shall also remain present in the court. The court was hearing a petition by one Mohammad Tayub Laherwal.
Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now
Be Part of Quality Journalism |
Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast. |
| ACT NOW |
| MONTHLY | Rs 100 | |
| YEARLY | Rs 1000 | |
| LIFETIME | Rs 10000 | |