Contempt application alleging non-compliance with a writ direction to decide the applicant's representation. The respondent had passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 24.10.2024. The court held it could not examine the merits of that order in contempt jurisdiction and dismissed the petition as infructuous.
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:75341
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3787 of 2024
Applicant :- Sundar Lal Opposite Party :- Sri Naveen Khandelwal, Divisional Director Of Forest Sitapur Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Chauhan
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from Shri Naveen Kahndelwal, Divisional Director of Forest, Social Forestry Division, Sitapur has submitted that the representation of the applicant has been decided by the order dated 24.10.2024. Photocopy of the same has been provided to the learned counsel for the applicant today in Court.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the applicant is making submissions on the merit of the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the respondent pointing out illegality in the said order whereas the Writ Court has directed as follows:-
"6. In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before respondent no.2 then respondent no.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. "
Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 24.10.2024 shows that the Writ Court has only directed to the concerned authority to consider and decide the representation of the applicant, which has been decided and the Court having contempt jurisdiction cannot look into the merits.
In view of the aforesaid, the present contempt petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Notice issued, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Ashish
Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition survives when the representation has been decided by a reasoned order as directed by the Writ Court?
Sundar Lal
Sri Naveen Khandelwal, Divisional Director Of Forest Sitapur
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
