Disposed

Akhilesh Kumar v. Smt. Vineeta Yadav, Examination Controller, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2020CAPL/898/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application regarding non-compliance with a previous writ order directing the university to issue a reasoned order, the high court allowed the impleadment of a newly named opposite party and granted them three weeks to comply. The court disposed of the contempt application at this stage with liberty to file a fresh application non-compliance occurs.

What did the court decide?

Impleadment of the opposite party allowed. The opposite party granted three weeks to comply with previous writ order. Liberty to applicant to file fresh application.

Akhilesh Kumar Vs Smt. Vineeta Yadav, Examination… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 898 of 2020 Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Opposite Party :- Smt. Vineeta Yadav, Examination Controller, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University Counsel for Applicant :- Munna Babu Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prateek Chandra

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶5

The impleadment application is allowed. Let necessary impleadment be carried out forthwith.

¶6

By order dated 21.11.2019 passed in Writ C No.36811 of 2019 filed by the applicant, the Court directed as under:

¶7

"Under these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served either keeping the Writ Petition pending or calling the counter affidavit. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to file representation with regard to his grievances to the Examination Controller, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University, Prayagraj now Allahabad, respondent No.3 within a period of a week from today and the Examination Controller, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University, Prayagraj now Allahabad, respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate order on the said representation within three weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the representation should be decided with a speaking and reasoned order.

¶8

With the aforesaid direction, Writ Petition stands disposed of."

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party but the opposite party has willfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶10

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

¶11

The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the newly impleaded opposite party 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 envelope of the

¶12

applicant with a copy of contempt application to the newly impleaded opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.

¶13

The newly impleaded opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him 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 newly impleaded opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned.

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.11.2020 RKP

Akhilesh Kumar v. Smt. Vineeta Yadav, Examination Controller, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar v. Smt. Vineeta Yadav, Examination Controller, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University

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

Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs Shravan Kumar Gupta, District Basic Education Officer and Another

Committee of Management,S.P. Convent School through Its Manager and Another Vs Anurag Tripathi,Secretary Affiliation,Central Board of Secondary Education

Rambeer Singh Vs Sarvagya Ram Mishra, District Magistrate and Another

Babu Ram Mishra Vs Shri. Hira Lal, D.M. / District Deputy Director of Consolidation Banda

Manish Kumar Tripathi Vs Kriti Gautam, Secretary

Shivraj Singh and Another Vs Sri Manvendra Singh, D.M.