Dismissed

Sundar Lal v. Sri Naveen Khandelwal, Divisional Director of Forest Sitapur

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024/3787/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application challenging the validity of a certification order. The court held that since the Writ Court had directed the authority to decide the representation and the matter was already disposed of, the contempt application was dismissed as infructuous without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed as having become infructuous.

Sundar Lal Vs Sri Naveen Khandelwal, Divisional Director… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75341

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3787 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sundar Lal

¶5

Opposite Party :- Sri Naveen Khandelwal, Divisional Director Of Forest Sitapur

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Chauhan

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from Shri Naveen Kahndelwal, Divisional Director of Forest, Social Forestry Division, Sitapur has submitted that the representation of the applicant has been decided by the order dated 24.10.2024. Photocopy of the same has been provided to the learned counsel for the applicant today in Court.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the applicant is making submissions on the merit of the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the respondent pointing out illegality in the said order whereas the Writ Court has directed as follows:-

¶10

"6. In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before respondent no.2 then respondent no.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶11

7. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.

¶12

8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. "

¶13

Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 24.10.2024 shows that the Writ Court has only directed to the concerned authority to consider and decide the representation of the applicant, which has been decided and the Court having contempt jurisdiction cannot look into the merits.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, the present contempt petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶15

Notice issued, if any, stands discharged.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Ashish

¶17

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

Sundar Lal v. Sri Naveen Khandelwal, Divisional Director of Forest Sitapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundar Lal v. Sri Naveen Khandelwal, Divisional Director of Forest Sitapur

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

Shiv Mangal Vs Sri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Prin. Chief Conservator of Forests, Lko.

Gyanu Sharma Vs Matam Venkata Rao, Chief Manager Central Bank of India, Mumbai and Others

Kusum Vaish Vs Ramakant Pandey, the Managing Dir. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Lko. and Others

Smt. Sudha Trishuliya Vs Sarneet Kaur Broka, Director Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar, Lko.

Raghu Vir Singh Yadav Vs Dr. Arvind Verma, Director Homeopath U.P., Lko.

Mahesh Kumar Mishra Vs Rahul Singh, Tehsildar Musafirkhana Distt. Amethi