Disposed

Vinod Kumar Yadav v. Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024CAPL/3374/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application over non-compliance with a writ court order dated 01.02.2024 in Writ-A No.734 of 2024. Respondents sought deferments on medical and procedural grounds previously rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench. The court framed charges against both respondents for wilful disobedience, directing them to reply within two weeks and appear on 06.01.2025.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vinod Kumar Yadav vs Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3374 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Dubey,Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pankaj Patel,Lalit Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.1 and has filed an affidavit on behalf of respondent no.1 that he is suffering from chikungunya. The respondent no.1 has been on medical leave with effect from 14.11.2024. Earlier, he was admitted in hospital thereafter he was discharged on 26.11.2024 and is still on leave.

¶6

Shri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2 Dr. Arvind Kumar Sharma who is present before the Court and an affidavit of deferment has been filed indicating that against the order passed by the writ court initially review petition had been filed which was dismissed whereafter a special appeal has been filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay. It is stated that the matter was listed even yesterday but the same could not be taken up on account of paucity of time and is now listed on 18.12.2024. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner no.2 also prays that the matter be deferred.

¶7

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and noticing the affidavit filed by the respective respondents no.1 and 2 separately seeking deferments. this court finds that on 29.11.2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had taken note of the aforesaid submission and the application earlier moved by the respondents no.1 and 2 for

¶8

deferment were rejected and last opportunity was granted to comply with the order passed by the writ court, failing which the respondents no.1 and 2 were directed to appear in person for framing of charges.

¶9

Today again as already noticed that the respondent no.1 being on medical leave is not present, however, the fact still remains that it is not disputed by Shri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 that the order of the writ court has not been complied with so also Shri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 could not dispute the fact that the order has not been complied with.

¶10

Dr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, respondent no.2 is present before the Court and it was specifically put to him regarding the non compliance of the order passed by the writ court and whether he had anything else to add then what has has been stated by him in his affidavit to which he only stated that the matter is under consideration and till date the relief which was granted by the writ court has not been given to any other employees so also the petitioner, hence this matter may be deferred.

¶11

The explanation as offered by the officer is not sufficient for this Court to defer the proceedings as on the same grounds the deferment application dated 18.11.2024 and 29.11.2024 were rejected. Accordingly, this Court has no other option but to frame the charge against both the respondents no.1 and 2.

¶12

Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner/Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Dugdhashala Vikas, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow may answer the charge as to why he should not be punished for non compliance of the order passed by the writ court dated 01.02.2024 passed in Writ-A No.734 of 2024 and corrected order dated 16.02.2024.

¶13

Dr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, General Manager, Producers, Cooperative Milk Union Limited, Prayagraj may answer the charge as to why he

¶14

may not be punished for committing contempt and wilful disobedience of the order passed by the writ court dated 01.02.2024 in Writ-A No.734 of 2024.

¶15

They may furnish their reply within two weeks.

¶16

List this matter on 6th of January, 2025 , on which date both the respondents no.1 and 2 shall again appear in person to answer the said charge.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.12.2024 ank

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar Yadav v. Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vinod Kumar Yadav v. Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Tripathi @ Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mohd. Hasnain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohammad Waseem Alias Waseem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vishnu Prasad Shahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinod Kumar Tewari Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rama Kant Verma and Ors. Vs State of U.P and Anr.