Navneet Kumar Srivastava vs Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director of Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed objection against the application for deferment of the contempt proceedings which has already been taken on record.

¶12

The respondent nos. 1 & 2 have filed an application for deferment of the contempt proceedings on the ground that the stay vacation application dated 17.07.2025 is pending in the writ petition.

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that an objection against the deferment application has been filed with a specific averment made therein that after filing the stay vacation application on 17.07.2025, no application for early disposal of stay vacation application has ever been moved by the opposite parties in the writ petition nor any such efforts have been made.

¶14

In one of the contempt matters when the charges were framed, the special appeal was filed on the ground that the stay vacation application is pending and reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Kumar Pandey versus Committee of Management Shri Gandhi Inter College and others , which has been enclosed along with the application for deferment. The Division Bench of this Court has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Kumar Pandey (supra) and has interpreted and discussing the same has passed the following order dated 19.08.2025. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶15

" 26. There is another way to look at the issue and that is once

¶16

CAPL No. 2092 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

the Contempt Court found that the order of the writ court is not complied with and further noticed that ample time was granted for the appellant to comply with the order and failing which the charge was framed, this exercise is nothing but in aid of the proceedings under the contempt jurisdiction and cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction of the Contempt Court.

¶19

27. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the decision of the Apex Court in Vinay Kumar Pandey (supra), would reveal that the Apex Court has observed that where the stay vacation application is pending consideration of the writ court, in such circumstances, the Contempt Court should wait for the outcome of the stay vacation application. However, while making the aforesaid observations the Apex Court did not lay down any binding principle which is to be followed unquestioningly that is in all cases if against an order, a stay vacation is pending, then the contempt proceedings cannot proceed rather the observations are to be followed with judicial prudence and not as a mathematical theorem.

¶20

28. The record indicates that the Contempt Court in the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 has clearly noticed that no material was brought on record to substantiate the fact that the appellants seriously pressed their application for stay vacation with promptitude before the writ court. In light of the said finding which could not be demonstrated to be incorrect, this Court does not find the order of the Contempt Court to be without jurisdiction.

¶21

29. For the aforesaid reasons and noticing the dictum of the this Court in Subhash Chandra (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open for the appellants to move an application before the writ court with a request to consider the given situation and get the stay vacation application decided expeditiously, and needless to say the said application can be considered by the writ court appropriately. "

¶22

The learned State Counsel is unable to dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶23

CAPL No. 2092 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

In view of the above, the application for deferment is hereby rejected.

¶26

At this stage, learned State Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks' time for filing compliance affidavit, failing which the respondent nos. 1 & 2 shall appear in person.

¶27

List this case in the week commencing 19.01.2026.

¶28

December 8, 2025 Nitesh

¶29

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶30

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

Navneet Kumar Srivastava v. Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director of Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navneet Kumar Srivastava v. Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director of Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

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

Shobhit Srivastava and 4 Others vs Vinod Singh Rawat, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Law, Legal Remembrance, Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Ajay Kumar Pandey vs Mr. B.L. Meena ( Babu Lal Meena ) Commissioner / Registrar Cooperative and Anr.

Keshav Dev Sharma vs Sri Guru Prasad, Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Phoolmati vs Ms. Kavyasi, the Distt. Programme Officer, Child Development Services and Nutrition, Barabanki

Jitendra Kumar vs Shri Surendra Kumar Tiwari, Secy. Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P. Prayagraj

Ajay Kumar Goel vs Shri Mahendra Verma (Ias) Secy. U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Lko.