Disposed

Shivam Baranwal v. Anju Kasaudhan, Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Amethi and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024CAPL/3699/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application, the applicant alleged non-compliance with a prior order directing reconstruction and disposal of a lost file. The Court listed the matter for hearing, directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to obtain replies regarding compliance and the unauthorized conduct of the Chairman's husband in official duties, and ordered correction of the respondent's name in the cause

What the court decided

AI extract

Shivam Baranwal vs Anju Kasaudhan, Chairman… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3699 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Shivam Baranwal Opposite Party :- Anuj Kasaudhan, Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Amethi And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 24.08.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 6890 of 2023.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as property in question was not being mutated in the name of the applicant on the basis of sale deed, a writ petition i.e. Writ-C No. 6890 of 2023 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of on 24.08.2023.

¶8

The order dated 24.08.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 6890 of 2023 is as under:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for reconstruction and early disposal of lost file bearing Suit No.41 (Surajkali Vs. Girja Shanker).

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, states that the file is in the process of reconstruction and all parties have been summoned. The reconstruction shall take place within a very short time.

¶12

It is expected that the authority concerned shall thereafter proceed and decide the case also as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of."

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that aforesaid order was communicated to respondent authorities, but till today the same has not been complied with. He next submits that respondent no.1- Smt. Anju Kasaudhan is elected as Chairman of Nagar Panchayat Amethi, District- Amethi, but in her office, her husband, namely, Sri Phoolchand Kasaudhan is doing all affairs of the Chairman.

¶15

Drawing attention of the Court on photographs annexed as Annexure no.4, it is also submitted that all the official work of the Chairman is being conducted by husband of respondent no.1 and her husband is also giving threat by saying that mediation proceeding will not be concluded.

¶16

6. List this case on 30.09.2024 at 11:30 A.M.

¶17

Sri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall ensure through District Magistrate, Amethi that the respondents shall file reply to the contempt application by the next date of listing and the respondents shall explain that why the order of the writ Court has not been complied with till today.

¶18

District Magistrate, Amethi is directed to look into the matter that how the husband of respondent no.1 is sitting in the office of the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Amethi and conducting all official affairs.

¶19

Let two copies of the contempt application be provided to Sri Bajpai by learned counsel for the applicant, forthwith.

¶20

Registry is also directed to correct the name of respondent no.1 in the cause list.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Arpan

¶22

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

Shivam Baranwal v. Anju Kasaudhan, Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Amethi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shivam Baranwal v. Anju Kasaudhan, Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Amethi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shareef @ Mohd. Nazim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Hari Nath Tewari and Another vs Sri Nath Singh Kushwaha, Finance Controller, Lko. and Others

Dr. Arvind Kant vs Smt. Leena Johri, Ias, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Govt. of U.P., Lko. and Another

Mohan Lal vs Vrinda Shukla, S.P. Distt. Bahraich U.P.

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

M/S S.S. Construction Thru Sole Proprietor Shashi Shankar Singh vs General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi and Ors.