Kedar Ram (Since Deceased) and 3 Others vs Sri Sachdeo Arun

Court No. - 1

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1076 of 2025

Applicant :- Kedar Ram (Since Deceased) And 3 Others Opposite Party :- Sri Sachdeo Arun Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party.

¶6

The writ Court on 08.11.2024 has passed the following order:

¶7

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 2.11.2020 passed by respondent no. 5."

¶8

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that present controversy is squarely covered with the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 2228 of 2022; Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169758 (Jaj Prasad vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 23.08.2023, therefore, this petition may also be allowed on same terms.

¶9

4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

5. Therefore, under such facts of the case, impugned order dated 02.11.2020 is hereby quashed.

¶11

6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in terms of order dated 23.08.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 2228 of 2022. "

¶12

It is undisputed between the parties that the controversy involved in the present case is identical to the controversy involed in Jaj Prasad(Supra) . It is also undisputed between the parties that against the order dated 23.08.2023 passed in Jaj Prasad(Supra) Special Appeal Defective No. 810 of 2023 was filed and the same has been dismissed on 01.02.2024 by Division Bench of this Court. Against that State Govt. approached the Apex Court by filing SLP No. 1211 of 2025 and the Apex Court has dismissed the same on 03.03.2025.

¶13

The case was heard on 12.05.2025 and the Court has passe the following order:

¶14

"The affidavit filed by the Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite party is taken on record.

¶15

It has been stated in the affidavit that a Special Appeal against the order passed by the Writ Court has been prepared and permission has been granted for filing the same.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid, the Standing Counsel prays that the matter be adjourned for the day to enable the opposite party to challenge the order passed by the Writ Court in Special Appeal.

¶17

It is noted that the order dated 8.11.2024 has been passed relying on the order dated 23.8.2023 passed by this Court in Writ A No.2228 of 2022 as the present case is similar to the case involved in Writ A No.2228 of 2022. The Special Appeal filed against the order passed in Writ A No.2228 of 2022 has already been dismissed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 1.2.2024.

¶18

The order dated 8.11.2024 has been passed after the order passed by the Division bench in Special Appeal Defective No.810 of 2023 filed against the order passed in Writ A No.2228 of 2022.

¶19

It does not appear from the order dated 8.11.2024 passed by the Writ Court in the present case that the opposite party pleads any difference or dissimilarity in facts between the present case and the facts involved in Writ A No.2228 of 2022.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, the plea of the opposite party to defer the proceedings in the present contempt application to enable him to challenge the order passed in the present case in Special Appeal is not bona fide.

¶21

The prayer is rejected.

¶22

However, considering the circumstances of the case, ten days further time is granted to the opposite party to file an affidavit showing full compliance of the order passed by this Court or the opposite party shall be personally present in the Court for framing of charges.

¶23

List again on 26.5.2025. "

¶24

Pursuant to order dated 12.05.2025, opposite party No. 1 is present before the Court along with affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶25

Based upon affidavit, learned Standing Counsel submitted that now the matter is pending before the Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Lucknnow, U.P.-opposite party No. 2 for approval to comply the order of the writ Court dated 08.11.2024. He prays for some more time for compliance of the order of the writ Court.

¶26

I have perused the affidavit filed by opposite party No. 1.

¶27

8. Para 8 of the affidavit is being quoted hereinbelow:

¶28

"8. That, in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble court, after making the several departmental correspondence, finally the Executive Engineer, office of Engineer-in-Chief (Karyaprabharit Adhisthan Prakosthi) Ganga Sinchai Bhawan, Teilibagh, Sinchai Vibhag, U.P. vide letter dated 21.05.2025 has placed the matter before the State Government for grant of approval in respect of order passed by this Hon'ble Writ Court."

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted to implead Mr. Anil Garg, Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Lucknow, U.P. as opposite party No. 2 during the course of the day.

¶30

Under such facts of the case opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are granted four weeks' time as last opportunity to comply order of the writ Court dated 08.11.2024, failing which they shall remain present before the Court for framing of charge.

¶31

Registrar(Compliance) is also directed to send a copy of this order to opposite party No. 2 within 24 hours.

¶32

It is made clear that no further time shall be granted.

¶33

List this case on 08.07.2025.

¶34

Order Date :- 26.5.2025 ADY

¶35

Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kedar Ram (Since Deceased) and 3 Others v. Sri Sachdeo Arun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedar Ram (Since Deceased) and 3 Others v. Sri Sachdeo Arun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raju Nishad vs State of U.P.

Committee of Management Brahmanand P.G. College Rath (Hamirpur) through Its President-Dr. Indrapal vs Dr. Amit Bharadwaj Director of Education U.P. Higher Education Directorate Sarojini Naidu Marg, Civ

Smt. Vibha Shukla vs Rajeev Kumar Yadav District Inspector of Schools and Another

Dinesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mangal Alias Prince Kumar Gaumat and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

State of Up vs Lakhan Singh Alias Kallu and Another