Dismissed

Jyoti v. Raj Kapoor Nayab Tehsildar (Jahangirganj) Tashil Alapur

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2024CAPL/4420/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an Article 227 contempt application alleging wilful disobedience by a Tehsildar for failing to decide a case within three months of a court order. The High Court found the applicant did not claim a request to appear in person and noted lawyer inactivity, thus finding no case of wilful disobedience.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as no case of wilful disobedience is made out.

Jyoti vs Raj Kapoor Nayab Tehsildar (Jahangirganj)… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76693

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4420 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jyoti Opposite Party :- Raj Kapoor Nayab Tehsildar (Jahangirganj) Tashil Alapur Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Keshari

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present contempt petition has been preferred for non compliance/ wilful disobedience of judgment and order dated 16.10.2023 passed in MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 5248 of 2023 titled as 'Jyoti vs. Nayab Tehsildar (Jahangirganj), Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar and Ors.' The relevant extract of the aforesaid order is being quoted hereinbelow:-

¶7

"In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide theCase No. 2330/2022, Computerized Case No. T202204040402330 (Jyoti vs. Mata Prasad) most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting any adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶8

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶9

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. "

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has made a representation on 28.10.2023 and from that date, three months' period had already expired on 21.02.2024 but the case has not been decided.

¶11

From perusal of the order sheet filed along with the contempt petition, annexed as Annexure no. 3, it is found that after 19.04.2024, 23 dates were fixed out of which on about more than 21 dates, the lawyers are abstaining from work. It is also not pleaded in the contempt application that the applicant had made any request that he may be heard in person.

¶12

Under these circumstances, no case of wilful disobedience of the aforesaid order is made out against the Officer as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶13

In view of above, the present contempt petition is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 Nitesh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jyoti v. Raj Kapoor Nayab Tehsildar (Jahangirganj) Tashil Alapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti v. Raj Kapoor Nayab Tehsildar (Jahangirganj) Tashil Alapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akhilesh Mishra vs Sri Nitesh Bhondele, Distt. Panchayat Raj Officer, Barabanki

Ashok Kumar vs Shri Deepak Kumar Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and Others

Smt. Suneeta vs Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Dr. Ankit Gupta, Assistant Professer Vs Professor (Dr.) Arvind Rajvanshi Executive Director (E.D) Rae Bareli and 2 Others

Dinesh Chandra Vs Board of Revenue, Lucknow Thru. Member and 19 Others

Rekha Devi Vs Nayab Tehsildar Babaganj Tehsil Kunda District Pratapgarh and Another