Allahabad High Court
Monika Yadav vs Ruby Singh, Secretary And Another on 18 October, 2019
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6774 of 2019 Applicant :- Monika Yadav Opposite Party :- Ruby Singh, Secretary And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendu Ojha,Shatrughan Sonwal,Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Sr. Advocate Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 17.5.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.6305 of 2019 (Monika Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-
"Copy of the expert report filed today is taken on record.
Amendment application filed today is taken on record.
The amendments are formal in nature. The application is allowed.
Let the necessary incorporation be made within the course of the day.
The petitioner contends in paragraph no. '19' of the present writ petition that she had applied for getting scanned copy of the answer scripts by moving a proper application alongwith a bank draft of Rs. 2000/- on 10.9.2018, but the same was provided to her on 30.3.2019.
Submission is that for the said reason, the petitioner could not apply for re-evaluation pursuant to the notification dated 10.10.2018.
It is demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner from the key answers that the answer to the question no. 37 of Question Booklet Series-A given by the petitioner is correct.
The dispute with regard to the said question has been decided by this Court in judgment and order dated 03.05.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 5365 of 2019 (Radha Devi & others Vs. State of U.P. & others).
In view of the said decision, one mark is to be provided for the correct answer to question no. 37.
The respondent no. 4 namely the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allenganj, U.P., Allahabad, is directed to correct the result of the petitioner by assigning one mark to question no. 37. Corrected result of the petitioner shall be uploaded at the website within a fortnight from today.
The writ petition stands allowed."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have 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 parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within two 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 parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within three weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant 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 parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 SP/