Disposed

Ganesh Prasad v. Suhas Lalinakere Yathiraj, District Magistrate

Allahabad HC2 May 2019CAPL/1409/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for initiating contempt proceedings against a District Magistrate for non-compliance with a previous writ order. The court found a prima facie case but granted two months for compliance before further action. Application also allowed impleadment of the District Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Impleadment allowed to District Magistrate; master file to be served on respondent; respondent to comply with prior writ order within two months or face further application for contempt.

Ganesh Prasad Vs Suhas Lalinakere Yathiraj, District… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1409 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ganesh Prasad Opposite Party :- Suhas Lalinakere Yathiraj, District Magistrate Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Shankar Dubey,Sarvendra Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

The impleadment application dated 2.5.2019 is allowed. Let the impleadment be carried out forthwith.

¶7

The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.03.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.11282 of 2018 (Ganesh Prasad v. State of U.P. & Ors.). For ready reference the operative portion of the order dated 28.03.2018 is quoted as under:-

¶8

"..............Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we find that the consideration of the claim of the petitioner would necessarily entail an enquiry into facts relating to actual physical possession over the plots in question as claimed. Such an enquiry into facts must, in our considered view, be undertaken at the first instance by the District Magistrate/Collector. We accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶9

The petitioner shall within a period of two weeks from today submit a comprehensive representation in respect of his claim over the plots in question and furnish further evidence in respect of his assertion of being in actual physical possession thereof. Upon receipt of such a representation, the Collector concerned shall duly scrutinize the said claim, undertake an appropriate enquiry and pass a reasoned and speaking order disposing of the said representation. The District Magistrate/Collector shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶10

It is made clear that while disposing of this writ petition, we have not gone into or ruled upon the merits or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner."

¶11

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.

¶12

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 newly impleaded opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

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 selfaddressed 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.5.2019 SP/

Ganesh Prasad v. Suhas Lalinakere Yathiraj, District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Prasad v. Suhas Lalinakere Yathiraj, District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhim Singh Vs Anil Raj Kumar Addl.Registratadmn. Co-Operative Societies

Ram Dhani and 3 Others Vs Mr.Ravi Prakash Srivastava Posted Consolidation Officer

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs Dr. Anjana Goyal Presently Posted J.D.E. and Another

Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Vs Suhash L.Y. Distt. Magistrate

Deen Dayal Vs Dr. Roshan Jaikab D.M. and 2 Ors.

Nupur Srivastava Vs Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Secretary Basic Education U.P. Govt.