Disposed

Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi and Others v. Sanjay Kumar, IAS Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024CAPL/2841/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed arguments regarding the postponement of contempt proceedings due to the pendency of a special appeal. Noting that no interim order or condonation of delay existed, the court refused to permanently defer the matter, allowing the respondent time to file a compliance affidavit while setting a new listing date.

What did the court decide?

Exempted respondent's appearance once; granted six weeks time to file compliance affidavit; listed case in week commencing 10th February, 2025.

Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi and Others vs Sanjay Kumar, IAS… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2841 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi And Others Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar, Ias Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anindya Shastri,Ramit Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Application for exemption for appearance of respondent is taken on record.

¶6

Cause shown in the application is satisfactory.

¶7

Application is allowed exempting the appearance of respondent today only.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the contempt court without bringing the order dated 29.08.2024 to the notice of the Court passed in Special Appeal Defective No.427 of 2024 and the order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.3050 of 2024.

¶9

The order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.427 of 2024 and the order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.3050 of 2024 run as under:-

¶10

"Order dated 29.08.2024

¶11

Objections to the delay condonation application filed today in court are taken on record.

¶12

List on 05.09.2024, as fresh.

¶13

Liberty is granted to the parties to seek adjournment before the Contempt Court, as, we are seized with the matter.

¶14

Order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.3050 of 2024

¶15

1. Learned counsel for the parties inform that Special Appeal Defective No. 427 of 2024 was listed yesterday.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the parties undertakes before the Division Bench in the aforesaid special appeal that the contempt proceeding will not be pressed.

¶17

3. Accordingly, list this case after decision of the aforesaid special appeal along with CAPL/2841/2024."

¶18

The order passed by the contempt court on 30.08.2024 is in Contempt Application (Civil) No.3050 of 2024, not in the present contempt application.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent also has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 25.10.2024 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.427 of 2024 to show that learned counsel for applicant had stated before the Division Bench that the petitioners themselves have sought adjournment before the contempt court, so hearing of the present contempt matter may also be deferred as per order dated 30.08.2024. The order dated 25.10.2024 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶20

" 1. Case called out. Counsel for the respondents is not present

¶21

2. Perused the order dated 29.08.2024. In spite of the order dated 29.08.2024, the contempt proceedings have continued although we are seized with the appeal. We hereby provided that the contempt proceedings shall remain deferred till the next date of listing.

¶22

3. List on 07.11.2024.

¶23

4. After the aforesaid order was passed, Sri Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents appeared before the Court. He submitted that delay in filing the appeal has not yet been condoned, but this fact has not been informed to the Court. Moreover, he says that petitioners themselves have sought adjournment before the Contempt Court.

¶24

5. We, accordingly, post this matter on 04.11.2024, as fresh, as the contempt proceedings are listed on 27.11.2024".

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there was no undertaking given by learned counsel for the applicants in special appeal. In the order dated 29.08.2024 it was provided that liberty is given to the parties, so it cannot be treated as undertaking.

¶26

It is further submitted that the order dated 25.10.2024 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.427 of 2024 relied by learned counsel for respondent to show the intention of learned counsel for the applicants, it is also not admitted, as argued, for the reason that in the contempt proceedings the date i.e. 27.11.2024 was fixed and the statement of the petitioners themselves have sought adjournment before the contempt court and the special appeal was fixed for 04.11.2024. Neither on 04.11.2024 or thereafter any order has been passed as the matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time.

¶27

On being asked from learned counsel for the respondent

¶28

whether delay has been condoned or not or there is any interim order passed in favour of the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly submitted that till date neither delay has been condoned nor any interim order has been granted, meaning thereby the order passed by the writ court is still operative.

¶29

It is admitted case between the respective counsels that the special appeal was listed on 17.12.2024 but for some reason the order has been passed to list before another Bench in which one of us (Hon Jaspreet Singh,J) is not a member, due to which the matter could not be argued on merit and now the date is not known to the parties when the special appeal is listed next.

¶30

From perusal of the order dated 29.08.2024, it reveals that learned counsel for the applicants had never given any undertaking to seek adjournment before the contempt court; rather the court has granted liberty to the party to seek adjournment, as, the Court was seized with the matter.

¶31

It is an admitted case between the parties that neither delay has been condoned nor any interim order has been granted and the judgment and order passed by the writ court is still in existence.

¶32

As per law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asit Kumar Das vs. J.Panda, Chief Post Master General and others, (2020) 20 Supreme Court Cases 400 relied by learned counsel for the applicants, the contempt proceedings cannot be deferred merely on the ground of pendency of special appeal, especially when the delay has not been condoned till date nor any interim order has been passed therein.

¶33

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted six weeks' time for filing compliance affidavit, in case no interim order is passed in the special appeal during this period, failing which the respondent shall appear for the purpose of framing of charges.

¶34

List this case in the week commencing 10th February, 2025.

¶35

Order Date :- 19.12.2024 Renu/-

¶36

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

Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi and Others v. Sanjay Kumar, IAS Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi and Others v. Sanjay Kumar, IAS Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharm Raj Mishra Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Prasad Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, Lko. and 2 Others

Kidar S/O Babu and Ors. Vs Smt. Ramwati W/O Late Vishal and Ors.

Bechey Lal Vs Ram Das and Ors.

Bechey Lal Vs Ram Das and Ors.