Dismissed

Amrit Lal Patel v. Vimal Mishra Director I.E.R.T. Allahabad

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2022CAPL/5193/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application filed for non-compliance of a High Court order directing a decision on a salary fixation representation, the court dismissed the application because the applicant had already been given a decision rejecting the claim, rendering the original order's purpose moot. The dismissal does not bar future challenges.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed as no relief could be granted since the opposite party had already taken a decision on the representation.

Amrit Lal Patel Vs Vimal Mishra Director I.E.R.T… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5193 of 2014

¶3

Applicant :- Amrit Lal Patel Opposite Party :- Vimal Mishra Director I.E.R.T. Allahabad Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dutta Pandey,Lallan Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Amarendra Nath Singh,B.P. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

The applicant has preferred the present contempt application due to noncompliance of the order dated 18.12.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.67289 of 2013 (Amrit Lal Patel Vs. State of U.P. and another). The aforesaid order is reproduced below:-

¶6

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that his salary has not been correctly fixed by the authorities. In this regard the petitioner has Submitted representation dated 07.08.2012 to director I.E.R.T., Allahabad, Respondent No.-2 which is said to be still pending.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.-2, Director I.E.R.T., Allahabad, respondent No.-2 to take an appropriate decision on the pending representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, with in a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

¶9

Today when the matter is taken up, counsel for the applicant very fairly informed that a decision has been taken by the opposite party on the representation on 04.12.2014 by which the claim of the application for fixation of the salary has been rejected. It is argued that due to the pendency of the present contempt application, the applicant would not be able to take steps to challenge the aforesaid order.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Since a decision has already been taken by the opposite party on 04.12.2014 in pursuance of the order dated 18.12.2013 passed in the aforesaid petition, therefore, no relief could be granted to the applicant.

¶12

Accordingly, the present Contempt Application is dismissed.

¶13

It is made clear that this order would not preclude the applicant for challenging the decision dated 04.12.2014 before the appropriate forum.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.8.2022/saqlain

¶15

Digitally signed by SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER Date: 2022.08.05 11:33:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amrit Lal Patel v. Vimal Mishra Director I.E.R.T. Allahabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Lal Patel v. Vimal Mishra Director I.E.R.T. Allahabad

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

Smt. Sheela Devi Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Braham Dev Upadhayay and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kanchan Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Panmati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vijay Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs Sahdeo Addl. Commissioner Judicial and 5 Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others