Disposed

Kusum Devi v. Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra,Naib Tehsildar

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2021CAPL/3198/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a contempt application alleging non-compliance with a writ order. The Court provided the opposite party with an additional opportunity to comply within three months, citing Covid-19 circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The opposite party was given a further three months to comply with the earlier writ order directing the decision of Case No. 329 of 2013.

Kusum Devi Vs Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra,Naib Tehsildar — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3198 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Kusum Devi Opposite Party :- Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra,Naib Tehsildar Counsel for Applicant :- Jagadish Prasad Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

The applicant has preferred the present contempt application for non-compliance and willful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 02.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. - 39209 of 2019 ( Kusum Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others). The aforesaid order is quoted below:-

¶6

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sushil Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed with the following relief:

¶8

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to decide the Case No. 329 of 2013 (Kusum Devi Vs. Hira Lal) under Section 34 L.R.Act, village Dhedha, Pargana Kewai, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad pending before the Naib Tehsildar, Handia, District Allahabad within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, the instant writ petition is finally disposed off with a direction to the respondent no.1 to consider and decide the aforesaid case, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. "

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have willfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out but from perusal of the record and other circumstances, this court is of the opinion that due to Covid-19 and other circumstances, the authorities would not function properly despite this, it is expected from the authorities to comply with the order of this Court in its letter and spirit.

¶11

In this view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to comply with the

¶12

aforesaid order of the Court within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶13

Accordingly, the present contempt application is disposed of.

¶14

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.8.2021 saqlain

Kusum Devi v. Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra,Naib Tehsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusum Devi v. Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra,Naib Tehsildar

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

Hari Narayan Vs Sri Mangla Singh, D.M. and Another

Sri Prakash Tiwari Vs Yogendra Nath Singh, Joint Director of Education and Another

Anganu Vs Smt. Shubhangi Shukla, Additional City Magistrate ( Forth), Varanasi

Ashok Kumar Chaurasiya and Another Vs G.P. Tripathi Registrar/Nodal Officer J.E.E. B.Ed. and Ors.

Premnath Singh and Others Vs Tej Pratap Singh and Others

Arif Ghani Khan and Another Vs Prof Naresh Chandra Gautam V.C. Purvanchal University