Allahabad High Court
Jai Prakash Maurya vs Srihari Pratap Shahi, D.M. And 6 Others on 17 December, 2020
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3727 of 2020 Applicant :- Jai Prakash Maurya Opposite Party :- Srihari Pratap Shahi, D.M. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Nikhil Kumar Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceedings against the opposite parties for willful disobedience of the order dated 3.2.2016 passed in PIL No. 4731 of 2016 (Heera Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others). For ready reference, the order dated 3.2.2016 is quoted as under:-
"The petitioner claims to be a social worker and 'a reputed person in the society'. In the public interest litigation, he seeks an inquiry in regard to the issuance of Scheduled Tribe Certificates to persons belonging to Kahar and Bharbhuja Communities by treating them as synonymous to and a sub-caste of Gond.
The learned Standing Counsel states that in pursuance of an order which was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Akchchay Lal vs State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No.18 of 2003) on 10 October 2011, inquiries have been conducted by the scrutiny committee and caste certificates have been cancelled where they were found to be obtained wrongly. The grievance of the petitioner is that there may be a large number of other such certificates in respect of which action is required to be taken. We leave it open to the aggrieved individuals, if there are any violations of law to approach the competent scrutiny committee for necessary action in accordance with law.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. "
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds no reason or occasion calling upon any proceeding against the opposite parties under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Once the Court has declined to interfere, learned counsel for the applicant very fairly states that he does not to press the contempt application and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.
The contempt application is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2020 A.K.Srivastava