Dismissed

Kripa Shankar Mishra v. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Addl. Cheif Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024/2936/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant filed a contempt application for non-compliance of a previous writ order directing the Department of Home, UP, to decide a representation within eight weeks. The Court held that the decision was made and served, complying with the writ order, rendering the contempt application infructuous. It was dismissed with notices discharged.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed; notices discharged.

Kripa Shankar Mishra Vs Mr. Deepak Kumar, Addl. Cheif… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69830

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2936 of 2024 Applicant :- Kripa Shankar Mishra Opposite Party :- Mr. Deepak Kumar, Addl. Cheif Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Pandey,Jay Prakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

The present contempt application has been preferred for non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 29.08.2023, passed in Writ A No. 6499 of 2023 (Kripa Shankar Mishra versus State of U.P and ors).

¶6

This Court by its judgment and order dated 29.08.2023, on the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner had directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, U.P Lucknow to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 22.04.2023, within a period of eight weeks from the date certified copy of the order is served. In compliance of the judgment and order of the writ court, the representation of the petitioner has been decided by order dated 16.10.2024, which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the compliance afÏdavit.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant though not disputed the fact that the representation of the applicant has already been decided and the copy has been served upon the applicant yesterday night, but he is raising dispute on merits of the decision taken on the representation of the applicant, which cannot be looked into in the contempt jurisdiction.

¶8

The jurisdiction of the contempt court is to ensure whether the orders passed by the writ court has been complied with or not. Here, on the innocuous prayer of learned counsel for the applicant before the writ court to issue direction to respondent no. 1 to take decision on the representation of the applicant, the decision has been taken, so the order of the writ court has been complied with and after the decision on the representation of the applicant, now nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present contempt application. The contempt application has rendered infructuous hence dismissed .

¶9

Notices are hereby discharged.

¶10

Order Date :- 17.10.2024/DiVYa

¶11

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

Kripa Shankar Mishra v. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Addl. Cheif Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kripa Shankar Mishra v. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Addl. Cheif Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

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

Dr. Shyam Bihari Upadhayay Vs Deepak Kumar Presently Posted as Addl. Chief Secy., Home Lko.

Ram Prakash Vs Namrata Dubey, Naib Tehsildar, Haidergarh, Barabanki

Pappu Vs Gaurang Rathi, Distt. Magistrate / Collector, Unnao

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Pathak vs Smt. Leena Jauhari, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrtt., Lko. and Another

Dr. Ghanshyam Lal vs Dr. Hariom, Janjati Vikas Directorate, Lko.

Uttar Pradeshiya Safai Majdoor Sangh Thru. Its Distt. President Mithun Valmiki vs Smt. Sudha Devi, Chairman, Nagarpalika Parishad Bahraich