Dismissed

Mata Badal v. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Consolidation Officer Rudauli Distt. Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC13 May 2024/1668/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application for summoning and punishing respondents for allegedly violating an interim order, the single-judge bench held that no contempt was made out as there was no evidence that the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 was passed without the Writ Court's order before the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The contempt application is dismissed with the direction that no contempt proceedings are initiated.

Mata Badal Vs Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Consolidation… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36748

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1668 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mata Badal Opposite Party :- Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Consolidation Officer Rudauli Distt. Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.

¶7

The instant contempt application has been filed for summoning and punishing the contemnors for their willful and deliberate contempt of interim order dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 7459 of 2023.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that one writ petition i.e. Writ-C No. 7159 of 2023 was filed by respondent no. 04 challenging the order dated 07.08.2006 passed by Tehsildar, Rudauli, District- Ayodhya along with order dated 18.11.2016 passed by revisional authority, in the said petition, the applicant was arrayed as respondent and interim order was passed in the said petition on 29.08.2023 for maintaining status quo as exist on the date of the order and none of the parties shall create third party's rights. He further submits that notice was issued to the applicant as well as other respondents arrayed in the aforesaid petition.

¶9

Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the aforesaid order of the Writ Court was in notice of district authorities, Sub Divisional Officer as well as station officer of area concerned and it was orally informed by the applicant to respondent no. 01 before whom the alleged proceeding of recall under Section 9(a)(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was allegedly pending and the same was not taken into consideration while passing order dated 09.02.2024 which is contemptuous, hence, respondent nos. 01, 02, 03 & 04 may be summoned and punished in accordance with law.

¶10

Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for respondent no. 01, placed relevant record including instructions and submits that copy of order of the Writ Court was never placed before the Consolidation

¶11

Officer and as the order of the Writ Court was not in the notice of the officer, no contempt is made out, hence, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and going through the contents of the contempt application, written instructions of respondent no. 01 and record produced by Shri Jauhari; it is evident that there is no evidence that the order of the Writ Court was ever placed before respondent no. 01 at the time of passing the aforesaid order dated 09.02.2024.

¶13

Subject to above, no contempt is made out, thus, the contempt application is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 Arpan

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mata Badal v. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Consolidation Officer Rudauli Distt. Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mata Badal v. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Consolidation Officer Rudauli Distt. Ayodhya and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Parashu Ram Singh Vs J.S.Sandhu V.C. Narendra Dev University Faizabad and Anr.

Ram Kumar Maurya Vs Shri Hari Om Narayan Chand, Addl. Chief Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sultanpur

Abhishek Kumar @ Arun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Home Deptt Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt Lko.

Ashok Kumar Mishra and Others Vs Shri Rajiv Kumar Srivastava Unit Head (General Manager) Iti Ltd. Raebareli and Another

Gaurav Singh Vs Mala Srivastava, District Magistrate

Ram Nath Verma Vs Y.P. Shukla Divisional Forest Officer Social Forestry Divisi