The single judge dismissed a contempt application alleging disobedience of an interim order because that interim order had merged with the final judgment passed on 11.11.2011 in the leading writ petition held by a Division Bench.
The contempt application is dismissed as there is no surviving interim order to be disobeyed.
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. - 5
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4727 of 2011
Applicant :- M/S Deepak Enterprises Opposite Party :- Ravinder Bahadur D.F.O. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aloke Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
This contempt application has been filed alleging disobedience of the interim order passed by the writ court staying recovery of transit fee provided the petitioner gives an undertaking to the concerned Regional Forest Officer that the applicant will pay the due transit fee in the event it is upheld. After few months, the levy of transit fee was upheld by a Division Bench of this court in the leading Writ Petition No.327 of 2008 (N.T.P.C. vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 11.11.2011, along with several writ petitions, which includes the writ petition of the applicant. Thus, the interim order merged with the final judgment passed by this court on 11.11.2011 and no interim order survives thereafter.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any good reason to proceed further in this contempt application. Consequently, the contempt application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 19.11.2019 NLY
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant can be proceeded against for contempt given that the interim order it allegedly disobeyed ceased to exist when the leading petition was decided by a Division Bench.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No.327 of 2008 (N.T.P.C. vs. State of U.P. and others)Referred¶6
M/S Deepak Enterprises
Ravinder Bahadur D.F.O.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
