Disposed

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

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2021CAPL/702/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a contempt application where the applicant sought directions against wilful disobedience of a writ order. The court directed the Divisional Commissioner to decide the pending appeal expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the pending appeal most expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Mohd. Athar Hashmi Vs Mahendra Kumar, Executive Engineer… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 702 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Athar Hashmi Opposite Party :- Mahendra Kumar, Executive Engineer , Vidyut Vitran Khand-Ii Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mushfiq Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party.

¶6

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 11.06.2020 passed in Writ C No.9317 of 2020. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶7

"Heard Sri Syed Mushfiq Alil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Agarawal for the Corporation and Sri B.P. Singh Kacchawah, the learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

Learned counsels for the parties do not dispute that an appeal has been preferred against the order of Executive Engineer concerned, when in fact the order impugned was passed by him only.

¶9

Admittedly, such an appeal is not maintainable. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also in view of the fair stand taken by Sri Krishna Agarawal learned counsel for the Corporation, we deem fit to pass the following order:

¶10

The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event the petitioner files a fresh appeal before the designated authority, as provided under Section 127(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 within a period of 6 weeks from today, same shall be dealt with and disposed of on merits, as expeditiously as possible.

¶11

The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card).

¶12

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. "

¶13

By the aforesaid order direction was given to the applicant to file fresh appeal before the designated authority, as provided

¶14

under Section 127(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 within a period of 6 weeks from today, same shall be dealt with and disposed of on merits, as expeditiously as possible.

¶15

It is argued by Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party that fresh appeal was not preferred by the concerned competent authority but subsequently appeal has been filed by the applicant before the competent authority namely Divisional Commissioner and the same is pending consideration before him.

¶16

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned Divisional Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, present contempt application is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.8.2021 Pramod Tripathi

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Soran Singh Vs Shri Prabhu N. Singh District Magistrate

Awadh Bihari Singh Vs Dr. Santvana Shukla, Regional Finance and Account Officer

Akhilesh Pachauri and 8 Others Vs Rajendra Prasad Giri Managing Director

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

Jay Karan and 4 Others Vs Sri Akhand Pratap Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari