Disposed

Phool Chandra Tripathi v. Dr. Brijendra Singh v.C, Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agri. and Tech. Ayodhya and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2024CAPL/3411/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application regarding compliance with a judgment on employment representation. Court recorded affidavit of compliance, noted argument of infructuousness, and directed service of fresh notice on one respondent due to defective service.

What did the court decide?

Fresh notice issued to opposite party no. 2 on Director General, ICAR, for personal service.

Phool Chandra Tripathi vs Dr. Brijendra Singh v.C… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3411 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Phool Chandra Tripathi Opposite Party :- Dr. Brijendra Singh V.C, Acharya Narendra Dev University Of Agri. And Tech. Ayodhya And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prashant Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

An affidavit of compliance filed by respondent no. 1 i.e. Dr. Brijendra Singh Vice Chancellor, Acharya Narendra Dev University Of Agriculture And Technology, Kumarganj, District- Ayodhya, U.P. is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the University has submitted that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 22.03.2024, the representation of the applicant has been decided by the University as well as the ICAR and now nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present contempt application and for all practical purposes, the present contempt application has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a direction was issued to the Vice Chancellor and the Director General of Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi to take a decision on the representation of the applicant, wherein the University has decided the representation in favour of the applicant whereas the ICAR has rejected the claim of the applicant. The said order has not been passed by the Director General, ICAR, whereas it has been passed by the Project Co-ordinator. Neither respondent no. 2 has appeared in person nor any counsel on his behalf has filed his Vakalatnama till date, though as per service report dated 30.09.2024, in pursuance of the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Central District, Delhi dated 18.09.2024 and ASI, Police Station Inderpuri, New Delhi report dated 23.09.2024, the service has been served upon opposite party no. 2 through office. As the notice has been served in the office and not personally upon the opposite party no. 2, let a fresh notice be issued on opposite party no. 2.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks' time for taking steps.

¶10

List this case in the week commencing 03.02.2025, as fresh.

¶11

Order Date :- 10.12.2024 DiVYa

¶12

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Phool Chandra Tripathi v. Dr. Brijendra Singh v.C, Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agri. and Tech. Ayodhya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Chandra Tripathi v. Dr. Brijendra Singh v.C, Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agri. and Tech. Ayodhya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and Others

Mansharam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and 4 Others

Smt. Indira Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt. Barabanki and 5 Others

Ram Lal Vs Consolidation Officer, 1 , Sadar, Sultanpur and Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow Thru Its Manager vs Shanti Devi and Ors.

Ram Kumar Prajapati and 6 and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 2 Others