Disposed

Virendra Singh Yadav v. Om Prakash Arya, D.M.

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2020CAPL/1707/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dealt with a contempt application seeking action for the respondent's willful non-compliance with a writ order. The court held a prima facie case existed but granted a final opportunity to the opposite party to comply within six weeks before proceeding against them.

What did the court decide?

Six weeks granted to the opposite party to comply with the earlier writ order; liberty to move fresh contempt application if not complied.

Virendra Singh Yadav Vs Om Prakash Arya, D.M. — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1707 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- Om Prakash Arya, D.M. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Manohar Kashyap

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 21.11.2019 passed in Writ Tax No.1283 of 2019 (Virendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.). For ready reference, the relevant extract of order dated 21.11.2019 is quoted as under:-

¶6

"Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant writ petition, it appears that the only grievance of the writ petitioner is with regard to nonrenewal of his licence for manufacture and retail vending of Tari and Sendhi at Mirzapur, P.S.- Suhwal, situated in the district of Ghazipur.

¶7

The records reveal that the writ petitioner was granted a licence initially on 10th September, 2013, which was renewed from time to time till 2017-18. A representation appears to have been made by the writ petitioner on 15th January, 2019, addressed to the District Magistrate, Ghazipur. The District Magistrate, Ghazipur, is yet to take a decision in respect of the said representation.

¶8

Although in the facts of the instant case no writ in the nature of mandamus as prayed for can be issued, we leave it open to the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, to consider the representation of the writ petitioner dated 15th January, 2019 and take a decision in the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶9

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."

¶10

It is alleged in the affidavit filed alongwith contempt application that a certified copy of the aforesaid order alongwith other documents 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.

¶11

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 six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶12

The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed envelope to the office within three weeks from today. The office

¶13

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 recorded thereof.

¶14

The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate the applicant the order through the selfaddressed envelop within a week thereafter.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.3.2020 A. Pandey

Virendra Singh Yadav v. Om Prakash Arya, D.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh Yadav v. Om Prakash Arya, D.M.

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

Ajay Kumar Vs Arvind Kumar Dixit, Vice Chancellor, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University and 2 Others

Vijay Pandit Vs Anil Kumar Pandey, Executive Engineer

Sonu @ Javed Vs Dr. Rajkumar, Chief Medical Officer

Committee of Management Anglo Sanskrit Inter College and Another Vs Mrs. Anuradha Shukla, Secretary of Education (Secondary)

Jagriti Yadav Vs Shri Jagdish, Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission

Om Prakash Sharma Vs Mr. Om Prakash Arya, D.M.