Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Lko. and Another

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3374 of 2024

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Dubey,Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pankaj Patel,Lalit Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Lucknow- Respondent No.1 and Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, General Manager, Producers, Cooperative Milk Union Limited, Prayagraj, Post Ahmadpur Asrauli, Prayagraj, U.P. - Respondent No.2 are present. On the last date i.e. 6.1.2025 an order has been passed which is quoted hereinbelow:

¶7

"Shri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner Dairy Development, Lucknow is present before this Court.

¶8

Shri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner Dairy Development, Lucknowrespondent no. 1 has filed an short affidavit alongwith application for exemption from appearance, which is taken on record.

¶9

Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, General Manager, Producers Cooperative Milk Union Limited, Prayagraj respondent no. 3 has filed an application for deferment of contempt proceedings till final disposal of the special appeal filed by him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2024 passed in Writ A No. 734 of 2024, a Special Appeal (Defective) No. 606 of 2024 has been preferred in which delay has been condoned and the Division Bench has given liberty to the appellants/respondent herein to make a request before the Contempt Court for deferring the contempt proceedings as special appeal itself is being heard on merit and listed in the week commencing 20.01.2025.

¶11

It is further submitted that the present contempt proceedings may be deferred and it may be listed after week commencing 20.01.2025.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if deferment of present contempt proceedings is requested to see the outcome of the special appeal, which is listed in the week commencing 20.01.2025, the applicant has no objection in deferment of the present proceedings.

¶13

In case, if any interim order is not passed by the Division Bench, on the next date fixed, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall comply the order passed by the Writ Court failing which they shall appear before this Court on the next date of listing for the purposes of framing of charges.

¶14

As such, list this case in the first week of February, 2025."

¶15

Today, request has been made by both the respondents' counsel

¶16

respectively for deferment of the contempt proceedings as the Division Bench has given liberty to the appellants / respondents herein to make a request before the contempt court for deferring the proceedings. The same request was made on 6.1.2025 and this Court had deferred the contempt proceedings as it was told that the special appeal would be listed in the week commencing 20.01.2025 and fixed the case for today i.e. 04.02.2025. On behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 again a request has been made that the proceedings may be deferred as the special appeal is listed today. This Court had already accepted the request of the counsel for the respondents in view of the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in the special appeal whereby the special appeal was listed in the week commencing 20.01.2025 and it would be open for the appellant to make a request before the contempt court for deferring the contempt proceedings as special appeal itself is being heard on merits.

¶17

Neither any interim order has been granted in the special appeal when it was listed on 20.01.2025 nor any compliance affidavit has been filed.

¶18

At this stage, Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has submitted that three days further time may be granted for filing compliance affidavit, in case the interim order is not granted in the special appeal, no further time will be requested for deferment of the contempt proceeding and compliance affidavit will be filed.

¶19

List this case in the next week in top 10 cases, in case the compliance affidavit is not filed, the respondents shall appear for the purpose of framing of charges.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.2.2025 S. Kumar

¶21

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

Vinod Kumar Yadav v. Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Yadav v. Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Ltd.Throu Its Assistant Manager Vs Smt. Neel Kumari and Ors.

National Insurance Company Limited Lko.Thru.Regional Manager Vs Shama Devi and Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd.Thru Its Assistant Manager Vs Ramguni and 6 Ors.

Smt. Janak Dulari and 4 Others Vs Vishal Kumar, Sub-Divisional Officer Tarabganj Distt. Gonda

Rishabh Jain Vs Padmaja Singh, Dir. of Padmaja Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Lko. and 31 Others

Devi Deen Vs Shri Abhishek Anand, the D.M., Sitapur