Dismissed¶19

Akil Ali v. Kumar Vineet Managing Director U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factory Federation Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025CAPL/3290/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application dismissed as infructuous; compliance of writ court order dated 29.07.2025 held complete; representation dated 8.8.2025 decided by reasoned and speaking order dated 13.09.2025; duplicate orders dated 13.10.2025 and 28.11.2025 verbatim identical; no opportunity of hearing required as writ court gave no such direction; Sabha Shankar Dubey AIR 2019 SC 220 distinguished; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manish Kumar, J.; December 9, 2025; notice discharged.

What did the court decide?

The applicant's submission regarding denial of opportunity of hearing and non-consideration of his case in light of Sabha Shakar Dubey has no force, because the writ court neither directed an opportunity of hearing nor directed that the case be decided in light of that judgment. ¶16

Akil Ali vs Kumar Vineet Managing Director U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factory Federation Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3290 of 2025

Akil Ali

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Kumar Vineet Managing Director U.P. CoOperative Sugar Factory Federation Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Indu Prakash Singh, Jai Prakash Mishra

¶7

Court No. - 8

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Sri Jai Prakash Mishra, learned Advocate has put in appearance and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.1, which is taken on record. Sri Indu Prakash Singh, learned Advocate has filed Vakaltnama on behalf of Respondent No.2, which is also taken on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has submitted that in compliance of judgement and order dated 29.07.2025 the representation of the applicant has been decided by passing order dated 13.09.2025, copy of the same has been provided during course of argument, which is taken on record and photocopy of the same has been provided to the learned counsel for the applicant. Hence, the present contempt application is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

¶11

On the other hand learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 13.09.2025 has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. He has further submitted that the applicant has received copy of order dated 13.10.2025 and 28.11.2025 by registered post rejecting the representation of the applicant and now the 3rd order dated 13.09.2025 has been provided, so against which order the writ petition is to be filed is not clear.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through record, the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the writ court, the relevant para of the order is quoted hereinbelow :

¶13

CAPL No. 3290 of 2025

¶14

¶15

"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 eight weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order. "

¶16

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant with regard to not to provide the opportunity of hearing and not consider the case of the applicant in the light of judgement passed in the case of Sabha Shankar Dubey vs. Divisional Forest Officer - AIR 2019 SC 220 has no force for the reason that neither the writ court has directed for providing opportunity of hearing nor directed to decide the case of the applicant in the light of judgement and order passed in the case of Sabha Shakar Dubey (Supra).

¶17

So far as sending the orders dated 13.10.2025, and 28.11.2025 and now providing the order dated 13.09.2025 during the course of argument, on being asked from the learned counsel for the respondent, he has replied that the applicants had send three letters, so the same order has been sent by putting the date on which it was sent, otherwise all the orders are the same.

¶18

On being going through the order dated 13.09.2025, 13.10.2025 and 28.11.2025,it is found that orders are in verbatim the same whereby the representation of the applicant dated 8.8.2025 has been decided.

¶19

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the judgment and order passed by the writ Court has been complied with and the present contempt application has become infructuous and it is dismissed as such.

¶20

The notice, if any, issued against the respondent stands discharged.

¶21

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶22

December 9, 2025 S. Kumar

¶23

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

Akil Ali v. Kumar Vineet Managing Director U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factory Federation Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akil Ali v. Kumar Vineet Managing Director U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factory Federation Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Ram Kumari Vs Smt. Mala Srivastava, D.M., Raebareli

Raj Kumari Vs Rakesh Singh, M.D. U.P. State Bridge Corp. Ltd., Lko. and Another

Rajendra Bahadur Singh Vs Prof. Akhtar Haseeb V.C Narendra Deo Univ.of Agriculture and

Ram Sagar and 2 Others Vs Sri Shivendra Verma Sub Divisional Magistrate Dist. Unnao and 3 Others

Neeraj Yadav Vs Shri Subhash Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer Ambedkar Nagar

Sahj Ram Das Vs Smt. Preeti Singh Up Ziladhikari Tehsil Sirauli Gauspur Distt. Barabanki and Another