Disposed

Krishna Murti Pandey v. Sanjiv Singh, D.M. Chandauli

Allahabad HC8 Jun 2021CAPL/1084/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court considered a contempt application alleging disobedience of an order directing the issuance of a Freedom Fighter certificate. It prima facie found a case of contempt but instead of punishment, directed the respondent to obey the original order within two months, affording them a chance to comply.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party to comply with the writ order within two months; liberty to applicant to move a fresh application if not complied with.

Krishna Murti Pandey Vs Sanjiv Singh, D.M… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1084 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Murti Pandey Opposite Party :- Sanjiv Singh, D.M. Chandauli Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh K. Dwivedi,Dewendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

As per Resolution of this Court, for the purpose of taking preventive and remedial measures and for combating the impending threat of Covid-19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State opposite party.

¶7

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 26.11.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.17679 of 2020 (Krishna Murti Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors.). For ready reference, the relevant extract of order dated 26.11.2020 is quoted as under:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶9

The writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

¶10

"(A) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the respondent to issue certificate of Dependent Freedom Fighter being grand-son of Late Parshu Ram Pandey son of Ram Swaroop Pandey (Freedom Fighter)."

¶11

It has been submitted that an application for grant of the certificate was made by the petitioner on 29.10.2018 to the District Magistrate.

¶12

Reliance has also been placed upon a Notification No. 5/2015/18/1/2008-??-2/2015 issued by the State.

¶13

In paragraph 2 of the notification, it is the District Magistrate who is competent to issue the certificate, which the petitioner has applied for.

¶14

Under the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the District Magistrate concerned to deal with the application filed by the petitioner expeditiously and to dispose of the same positively within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is filed before him."

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order alongwith other documents was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite

¶16

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.

¶17

Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. Even though in the present matter, notice has been issued to the opposite party on 16.03.2021, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶18

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 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.6.2021 A. Pandey

Krishna Murti Pandey v. Sanjiv Singh, D.M. Chandauli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Murti Pandey v. Sanjiv Singh, D.M. Chandauli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Hari Mohan Agarwal Vs Raju Prasad Verma

Ved Prakash Vs Dr. Govind Ji Shukla Additional Director Pension and Treasury Saharanpur and 2 Others

Sri Ram Vs Sri Gaurav Kumar, S.D.O.

Smt. Geeta Agrawal Vs Additional District and Sessions Judge and 2 Others

Kamlesh Kumar and Another Vs Rajesh Kumar Mishra and 2 Others