Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v. G.S. Priyadarshi, Secy. Rural Development Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024/3430/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt application as infructuous. The learned standing counsel submitted that the respondent had passed a reasoned order complying with the writ court's earlier directions. The court accepted that the order was reasoned and speaking, thus satisfying the impugned directive, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt application was dismissed and the notice against the respondent was discharged.

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Vs G.S. Priyadarshi, Secy. Rural… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71372

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3430 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- G.S. Priyadarshi, Secy. Rural Development Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Narayan Datt Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the instruction received from the respondent has submitted that in compliance of the judgement and order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the writ court, the representation of the petitioner has been decided by order dated 15.09.2024, copy of which has been forwarded to the applicant and photocopy of the same has been provided to the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

It is further submitted that after the compliance of the order dated 18.04.2024 the present contempt petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.

¶7

On the other hand learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgement and order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the writ court has not been complied with as the representation of the applicant/ petitioner has been rejected instead of allowing the same, but the submission of learned counsel for the applicant is not acceptable as this Court has not issued any such direction either to reject or allow the representation of the petitioner and the only direction was to take decision on the representation of the petitioner by passing reasoned and speaking order. For convenience the relevant para of the order is quoted hereinbelow:

¶8

" In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before the respondent no.1 then the respondent no.1 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with representation."

¶9

The order passed by the respondent is reasoned and speaking, hence the present contempt application has become infructuous and accordingly dismissed.

¶10

The notice, if any, issued against the respondent is hereby discharged.

¶11

Order Date :- 23.10.2024/S. Kumar

¶12

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

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v. G.S. Priyadarshi, Secy. Rural Development Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v. G.S. Priyadarshi, Secy. Rural Development 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

Dilip Kumar Vs the Manager Allahabad Bank

Sarjoo Prasad Vs Yogendra Nath

Jagat Bahadur Vs Prachi Tripathi, Tehsildar, Ramnagar, Barabanki

Jitesh Kumar Mishra Vs Nisha Anant, District Magistrate, District Amethi and Another

Somveer Singh and Others Vs Dr. Vijay Bahadur Dwivedi, Director Horticulture and Food Processing, Lko.

Smt. Sheela Devi Vs Pradeep Kumar Singh, Tehsildar, Tehsil Milkipur, District Ayodhya