Contempt petitioner challenged non-compliance of an order directing expeditious disposal of a matter. The court found no wilful disobedience as the applicant did not request a personal hearing and lawyers appeared late for most dates.
The contempt petition was dismissed finding no case of wilful disobedience against the officer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76693
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4420 of 2024
Applicant :- Jyoti Opposite Party :- Raj Kapoor Nayab Tehsildar (Jahangirganj) Tashil Alapur Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Keshari
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
The present contempt petition has been preferred for non compliance/ wilful disobedience of judgment and order dated 16.10.2023 passed in MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 5248 of 2023 titled as 'Jyoti vs. Nayab Tehsildar (Jahangirganj), Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar and Ors.' The relevant extract of the aforesaid order is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide theCase No. 2330/2022, Computerized Case No. T202204040402330 (Jyoti vs. Mata Prasad) most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting any adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.
It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. "
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has made a representation on 28.10.2023 and from that date, three months' period had already expired on 21.02.2024 but the case has not been decided.
From perusal of the order sheet filed along with the contempt petition, annexed as Annexure no. 3, it is found that after 19.04.2024, 23 dates were fixed out of which on about more than 21 dates, the lawyers are abstaining from work. It is also not pleaded in the contempt application that the applicant had made any request that he may be heard in person.
Under these circumstances, no case of wilful disobedience of the aforesaid order is made out against the OfÏcer as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In view of above, the present contempt petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.11.2024
Nitesh
Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the mandatory order to decide the case expeditiously without adjournment constitutes wilful disobedience under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, given the applicant's lack of req
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jyoti
Raj Kapoor Nayab Tehsildar
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
