Dismissed

Ramdas @ Ram Paras v. Sri Bahnu Chandra Goswami, D.M.

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2021CAPL/310/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a contempt application filed for initiating proceedings against the District Magistrate for non-compliance of a prior order, holding the application infructuous as the impugned order was already complied with.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed as infructuous since the impugned order was complied with; applicant advised to approach concerned authority if aggrieved.

Ramdas @ Ram Paras Vs Sri Bahnu Chandra Goswami, D.M. — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 310 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ramdas @ Ram Paras Opposite Party :- Sri Bahnu Chandra Goswami, D.M. Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 08.09.2016 passed in Writ A No.28216 of 2013. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶6

"We may only record that the Division bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2015 (7) ADJ 630 after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Hari Ram, 2013 (4) SCC 280 and State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma, 2015 (5) SCC 321 has explained the law in the matter of taking of possession under section 10(3) followed by notification under section 10(5) of the Act 1976. The Writ Court had gone on to hold that even if there has been non service of notice under section 10(5) of the Act, 1976, the same will be of no consequence and would not vitiate or obliterate the act of taking possession. The Writ Court has further summoned the original record and had taken note of the directions of 1983 in the matter of service of notice and the relevant facts recorded in form ULC-II and ULC-I as well as ULC-III to arrive at a finding regarding possession.

¶7

We in the fact of the case, feel that the interest of justice would be subserved if the District Magistrate is required to consider the restoration application of the petitioner as well as to examine the compliance of the directions of 1983 with regard to the relevant form ULC-I to ULC-III before returning the finding on the issue of possession being with the State before the cut off date or not.

¶8

In view of the above, we dispose of the present writ petition requiring the District Magistrate to consider the restoration application filed by the petitioner as well as to consider the compliance of direction of 1983 as per paragraph no.10 of the judgement in the case of Shiv Ram Singh (supra) and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

¶9

Let this exercise be completed within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

¶10

By the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate, Allahabad was directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner.

¶11

Today when the matter is taken up, the instruction received from the office of opposite party was placed before this Court, same is taken on record. It appears from perusal of the same

¶12

that decision has already been taken by the opposite party on 24.2.2021. Copy of the same has also been provided to the learned counsel for the applicant. Since the order passed by the writ court has already been complied with, therefore, no cause of action remained surviv.

¶13

In view of the same, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous. However, in case applicant is still aggrieved it is open for the applicant to approach the authority concerned, if so advised.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.8.2021 Pramod Tripathi

¶15

Digitally signed by Justice Prakash Padia Date: 2021.08.06 15:13:11 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramdas @ Ram Paras v. Sri Bahnu Chandra Goswami, D.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdas @ Ram Paras v. Sri Bahnu Chandra Goswami, D.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldau Singh @ Kuldeep Singh Vs Shri T Vaikteshwar, Principal Secretary Irrigation Department U.P. Government at Lucknow

Ashok Awasthi Vs Abdul Wasid, Regional Officer, National Highway Authority of India and 3 Others

Mohd. Athar Hashmi Vs Mahendra Kumar, Executive Engineer , Vidyut Vitran Khand-Ii

Dashrath Singh Yadav Vs Dr O.P. Rai, District Inspector of Schools and 2 Others

Smt. Varsha Rani Vs Dr Arvind Kumar Pathak, B.S.A.

Charan Jeet Singh Vs Sri Jeevan Ram Yadav, Chief Engineer Stage-I (Vindhyachal)