The court disposed of a contempt application filed against a transferred and retired Sub Divisional Magistrate. Finding the original order was directed at a different official (Assistant Collector), the court dismissed further proceedings against the current applicant as not incumbent on the opposite party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1628 of 2017 Applicant :- Lal Bahadur Verma Opposite Party :- Sri Radhe Shyam Pathak Sub Divisional Magistrate Bansdih Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bilas Prasad,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Devi Prasad Mishra,Sudhir Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The order of this Court dated 8.8.2016 in PIL No.36589 of 2016 was to the Assistant Collector to do needful in the matter, keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in Bhole Nath and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.30252 of 2016 decided on 18.7.2016).
The instant petition has been filed against the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sri Radhe Shyam Pathak. Upon receipt of notice of contempt petition, he filed an affidavit stating that by order dated 1.7.2017, he was transferred to Tehsil Bairiya, Ballia. He requested his successor to furnish information regarding compliance of the order and judgement passed by this Court in the public interest litigation. He was informed by him that unauthorized occupants had been evicted on 15.7.2017 in the presence of Revenue team and police personnel. It is also stated by him that several cases for eviction of unauthorized occupants were pending in the court of Tehsildar, Bansdih district Ballia and which had been decided by him. He has filed another affidavit alongwith which copies of the orders passed by Tehsildar dated 26.5.2017 have been collectively brought on record as Annexure-1.
Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the direction in the public interest litigation was to the Assistant Collector i.e. Tehsildar concerned and not to the opposite party. He further submitted that the opposite party has also since been transferred and he has now even retired.
Learned counsel for the applicant is not in a position to dispute the said submission of learned counsel for the opposite party no.1.
In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further against the opposite party but leaves it open to the applicant, if so advised, to file a fresh petition against appropriate person.
The contempt application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
Order Date :- 22.10.2019
SL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to proceed with contempt proceedings when the opposite party has been transferred and retired, making the original order inoperative against him.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhole Nath and another Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶3
Bhole Nath and another Vs. State of U.P. and others
Lal Bahadur Verma
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
