Allahabad High Court
Jyotika Dutta vs Ruby Singh, Secretary, Basic Shiksha ... on 24 September, 2019
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6122 of 2019 Applicant :- Jyotika Dutta Opposite Party :- Ruby Singh, Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendu Ojha,Shatrughan Sonwal,Sri. Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is before this Court against wilful defiance of the order dated 10.5.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.6429 of 2019 (Jyotika Dutta v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-
"The revaluated answer script of the petitioner along with expert report has been brought on record.
A perusal thereof indicates that answer given by the petitioner to question nos.16 and 147 are correct. From the perusal of the key answer and the Question Booklet Series-'B'. Even from the perusal of the expert report it cannot be said that the answer given by the petitioner is incorrect.
In view of the judgment of this Court in Aniruddh Narayan Shukla vs State of U.P. in Writ A No.18235 of 2018 passed on 30.10.2018, one mark is to be provided to petitioner to question no.15. For the remaining two question nos.16 and 147 the petitioner is entitled for getting two marks, in as much as, they are correct. As far as, question no.98 is concerned, this Court in the judgment and order dated 3.5.2019 in Writ A No.5365 of 2019 from the perusal of the expert report and the reference material brought before this Court has clarified that the correct answer to the said question is '????? ????' one of the kind of '???? ????'.
For the aforesaid, the respondent no.4, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allenganj, U.P. Allahabad is directed to correct the result of the petitioner by providing four marks to the aforesaid answers and upload the result of the petitioner at the website within a fortnight from today.
The writ petition is accordingly 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.
Learned counsel for the applicant apprises to the Court that in the present matter no special appeal has been preferred against the writ Court order in question. However, in similar matters various special appeals have been preferred but all were dismissed. In this backdrop, it is contended that the writ Court order in question must be complied with by the opposite parties.
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 one week 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 :- 24.9.2019 SP/