This is a thin order disposing of a civil contempt application. The court found that the respondent had already decided the impugned case without an order of stay, rendering the contempt application infructuous. The application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 19
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2110 of 2022
Applicant :- Rahul Verma
Opposite Party :- Sri Vinay Barnwal, Naib Tehsildar Nagar, Ayodhya Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sewak,Naveen Agrahari
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Shri Ram Sewak, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri H.A.B. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
On 7th December, 2022, following order was passed.
"On 22.09.2022, following order was passed.
"The present contempt application is filed with the avernment that order dated 9.11.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.23331 (M/S) of 2021 (Rahul Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) is wilfully flouted by the respondent.
Let a copy of the contempt application be handed over to Sri Shrawan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel forthwith.
List this case on 11.10.2022 as fresh.
In the meantime, he may seek instructions that why the order of the writ court is not complied with."
Shri H.A.B. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel informs that the order of the writ Court has already been complied and the respondent-Mr. Vinay Barnwal, Naib Tehsildar, Nagar, Ayodhya has decided the case in question vide order dated 17.09.2022.
List this case on 13.12.2022 within top 10 cases.
Mr. Vinay Barnwal, Naib Tehsildar, Nagar, Ayodhya is directed to appear on the next date before this Court along with complete record of the case in question."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondent is present before this Court.
Shri H.A.B. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel submits that the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 23331 of 2021 filed by the applicant was disposed of by the writ Court on 9th November, 2021 with the direction to the Presiding OfÏcer to conclude the mutation proceeding within six months from the date of communication of the certified copy of the order. It is further submitted that thereafter, the applicant filed a transfer application before the Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Ayodhya, in which, on being asked, the respondent
on 23.06.2022 gave no objection to the case being transferred from his court. However, neither stay order nor any other order has been passed in the said transfer application. Learned Standing Counsel lastly submits that the case was being listed before the Naib Tehsildar, but since the applicant failed to appear before him, therefore, the case was decided by the respondent finally on 17.09.2022 in accordance with the directions of the writ Court. It is, thus, submitted that no contempt is made out.
Considering the contents of the contempt application and going through the order passed by the writ court, it is evident that in compliance of the order of the writ Court, the case in question has already been decided by the respondent on 17.09.2022. It is also evident that there was no stay order in the transfer application moved by the applicant.
In view of above, the present contempt application has lost its efÏcacy and, accordingly, stands dismissed as infructuous.
However, it is always open to the applicant to ventilate his grievance, if any, before the appropriate forum.
Order Date :- 13.12.2022 VKS
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.14 18:07:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt application regarding non-compliance of the writ court order is maintainable given that the matter was finally disposed of by the respondent without a stay order.
Rahul Verma
Sri Vinay Barnwal
Rajeev Singh
Vivek Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
