Shyam Sunder Rai, Thru. His Daughter Anchal Rai Vs Shri Sanjay Prasad Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

1. Affidavit of compliance filed today by Mr. S. M. Singh Raikwar, learned Additional Advocate General, duly sworn by Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, is taken on record.

¶11

2. Heard Mr. G. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. M. Singh Raikwar, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel.

¶12

3. The present contempt application has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

¶13

"To initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor-opposite party, directing him to appear in person before this Hon'ble Court and punish him for deliberately and wilfully disobeying and flouting the judgment and order dated 08.07.2024 passed by this

¶14

Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 4527 (CRLP) of 2024, "Shyam Sundar Rai, through his daughter Anchal Rai vs. State of U.P. and others," contained in Annexure No. 1 to the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of justice."

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was convicted in Session Trial No. 359 of 1987, under Section 302 I.P.C. in reference to Case Crime No. 43 of 1986, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur, vide judgment and order dated 12.02.1990, for a term of life imprisonment. Thereafter, the appeal and S.L.P. were also dismissed. The applicant is in jail since 2019.

¶16

5. His further submission is that the applicant moved an application for parole before the competent authority on 12.05.2023, but the same was not decided. He then preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4527 of 2024, which was disposed of on 08.07.2024. The order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the Court is as under:

¶17

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶18

2. Present writ petition is filed by petitioner for the following primary relief:-

¶19

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to grant the parole for a period of one month in pursuance of the Para 3(1) sub para (a) of the Gazette Notification dated 29.01.2013 contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice."

¶20

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that

¶21

grievance of petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no.1 considers and decides application of petitioner in a time bound manner.

¶22

4. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Home, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow is directed to decide the application of petitioner in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, if possible within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.

¶23

5. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition is disposed of."

¶24

6. He has also submitted that the aforesaid order was communicated to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., Lucknow, along with a representation dated 19.07.2024 through registered post, but no decision was taken on the representation of the applicant dated 12.05.2023. He then preferred the present contempt application. He further submitted that till today, the direction of the writ Court has not been complied with, therefore, the respondent be summoned and punished accordingly.

¶25

7. Mr. S. M. Singh Raikwar, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the representation dated 12.05.2023 submitted by the applicant was addressed to the Joint Secretary, Jail Prashasan & Sudhaar Vibhag, U.P. Government, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, and the said application was already decided by the competent authority vide order dated 14.02.2024. The order was also communicated to the petitioner through the

¶26

Superintendent, District Jail, Mau. Therefore, the present contempt application has been filed on incorrect facts and is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

8. Considering the contents of the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the writ Court as well as the affidavit of compliance filed by Mr. S. M. Singh Raikwar, learned Additional Advocate General, duly sworn by Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, as the representation of the applicant dated 12.05.2023 for parole was already decided, this Court is of the view that no contempt is made out.

¶28

9. Accordingly, the present contempt application is hereby dismissed .

¶29

10. However, it is open to the applicant to take an appropriate remedy if he is feeling aggrieved.

¶30

(Rajeev Singh, J)

¶31

Order Date :- 1.8.2025 A.Dewal

¶32

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

Shyam Sunder Rai, Thru. His Daughter Anchal Rai v. Shri Sanjay Prasad Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Rai, Thru. His Daughter Anchal Rai v. Shri Sanjay Prasad Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Swarnesh Gupta and Another Vs Prathmesh Kumar, V.C. of Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow and 2 Others

Smt. Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko.

Hifza Fatima Thru. Her Father Mohammad Sajid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Prashant Srivastava Vs Sri Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Director of Education Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya

Smt. Indu Singh and 2 Others Vs Shree Ranjan Verma Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Milkipur Distt. Ayodhya

Mansi Singh Vs Ms Kinjal Singh Director General Directorate of Medical Edu. and Training Lko.