Allahabad High Court
Raj Narain Yadav And Another vs Pravin Mani Tripathi, District ... on 4 March, 2020
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1565 of 2020 Applicant :- Raj Narain Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- Pravin Mani Tripathi, District Inspector Of Schools Counsel for Applicant :- Sohan Lal Yadav Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
By order dated 14.2.2019 passed in Writ A No.19815 of 2011 filed by the applicant, the Court directed as under:
"It is admitted between the parties that the controversy involved in the present case has already been decided by this Court in Writ Petition No.10665 of 2006 (Dharam Pal Singh Rajpoot and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 30.3.2009. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that following the said judgement, a judgment was also delivered by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5292 of 1998 (SS) (Basant Kumar Pathak and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 13.7.2009. In this background of the matter, in the present writ petition, the petitioner has come up for the extension of the same benefits, as has been given by this Court in the aforesaid judgment.
It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that according to his best knowledge no special appeal has been filed against the said judgment. This fact has not been denied by the learned Standing Counsel also.
Since the claim of the petitioner is identical in the aforesaid writ petition, specially in writ petition filed by Dharam Pal Singh Rajpoot (supra), the present writ petition is also disposed off with a direction that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same benefit as has been given under the judgment and order dated 30.3.2009 in the case of Dharam Pal Singh Rajpoot (supra).
The writ petition is accordingly, disposed off with a direction to the respondents to implement the aforesaid judgment as per the directions contained therein in respect of the petitioner as well.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is allowed."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party but the opposite party has wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 4.3.2020 RKP