Pramila Singh Vs Sri Rajesh Upadhyaya Chief Vaterinary Officer and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pramila Singh Vs Sri Rajesh Upadhyaya Chief Vaterinary Officer and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the alleged non-payment of the balance amount, despite the direction of this Court passed in the writ petition dated 30.07.2025, constitutes willful disobedience of the writ court's order warranting contempt proceedings. +1 more

Court's answer

There was no positive (unconditional) direction for payment in the writ order; the order passed in the writ was conditional, imposing payment only 'in case it is found due'.

Ratio / Principle

Against the respondents' short counter affidavit giving reasons for non-payment, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant till date to controvert its averments.

Key takeaways

The bills relied upon by the applicant's counsel, annexed with the short counter affidavit, are not the bills for which payment has not been made.ratio¶19
A dispute regarding the determination of the amount or claim, alleged by the applicant and denied by the respondents, cannot be examined or resolved within the contempt proceedings.ratio¶19
On the foregoing considerations, the order passed in the writ petition has been complied with.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 8 — Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4520 of 2024: Pramila Singh v. Sri Rajesh Upadhyaya, Chief Veterinary Officer and another (Manish Kumar, J.; decided November 11, 2025). The applicant sought contempt action for willful disobedience of this Court's judgment/order dated 30.07.2025 (para-5), which had disposed of her writ petition by directing respondent nos.2 and 3 to expedite payment 'in case, it is found due', within three months of production of a certified copy of the order. The respondents had applied on 07.04.2025 for discharge of the contempt notices, enclosing a short counter affidavit giving reasons for non-payment (the supplier could not produce proof of payment received); the applicant filed no rejoinder, and the bills she relied upon (SCA-1) were not the bills left unpaid. Held: (i) there was no positive direction for payment — the writ order was conditional ('in case it is found due'); (ii) a dispute as to the determination of the amount or claim denied by the respondents cannot be adjudged within contempt proceedings. Concluding that the writ order had been complied with, the Court dismissed the contempt application. (Note: sentence beginning in para-5 'there was no positive' runs across the page break into para-5's continuation.)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4520 of 2024

Pramila Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Sri Rajesh Upadhyaya Chief Vaterinary Officer And Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ajey Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:

Court No. - 8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non-compliance of judgement and order dated 30.07.2025. Relevant para-5 of the said order is quoted herein below:-

"This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent nos.2 and 3 to expedite the payment of the petitioner, in case, it is found due and such payment be made within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Authorities concerned."

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the direction of this Court passed in the writ petition, the balance amount has not been paid which amounts to willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ court.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that an application for discharge of contempt notices and dismissal of contempt proceedings has been filed on 07.04.2025 along with short counter affidavit mentioning therein the payments made and the reasons for non payment of amount as claimed by the applicant in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the said affidavit i.e. the applicant was not able to produce the proof of payment made to the supplier and thereafter the supplier was called in the office of the answering respondent for the purpose of verification of bill voucher produced but the supplier was also unable to produce the proof of payment received by him from the applicant.

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that all the bills were produced and the same have been enclosed by the answering respondent as SCA-1 in the short counter affidavit.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges in the present case is that there was no positive

CAPL No. 4520 of 2024

2

direction for payment as it was the conditional order passed in the writ that 'in case it is found due'. The respondents has filed short counter affidavit giving reasons for non payment of amount alleged by the applicant and against the said short counter affidavit, till date no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant controverting the averments made in the short counter affidavit. The bills which have been relied by learned counsel for applicant annexed with the short counter affidavit are not those bills for which the payment has not been made. The dispute regarding the determination of amount or claim as alleged by the applicant denied by the respondents cannot be seen in the contempt proceedings.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the order passed in the writ petition has been complied with. The present contempt application is dismissed.

November 11, 2025

Renu/-

(Manish Kumar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench