Dismissed¶14

Deepak Kumar Tiwari @ Deppak Tiwari @ Deepak Tiwari v. Shri Pawan Singh Tehsildar Tehsil Patti Distt. Pratapgarh

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2025CAPL/4538/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deepak Kumar Tiwari contempt application against Pawan Singh Tehsildar Tehsil Patti Pratapgarh; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench Court No. 17; CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 4538 of 2024; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:13831; non-compliance with writ court judgment dated 9.8.2023 in PIL No.712 of 2023; Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 competent authority proceeding pending; order produced 21.08.2023; 27 dates fixed between 23.10.2023 and 3.3.2025, lawyers abstaining on 23 dates; lawyers' strike; no willful or intentional disobedience; contempt petition dismissed; notices against respondent discharged; Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.; Order Date 6.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

Notices, if any, issued against the respondent are discharged. ¶14

Deepak Kumar Tiwari @ Deppak Tiwari @ Deepak Tiwari Vs Shri Pawan Singh Tehsildar Tehsil Patti Distt. Pratapgarh — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Notices, if any, issued against the respondent are discharged.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-opposite party (Shri Pawan Singh, Tehsildar, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh) engaged in intentional and wilful disobedience of the writ court's judgment and order dated 9.8.2023 passed in PIL No.712 of 2023, by leaving the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 undecided despite the direction to decide it expeditiously.

¶9

Court's answer

In view of lawyers' abstention from judicial work on 23 of the 27 dates fixed between 23.10.2023 and 3.3.2025, it could not be said that there was willful and intentional disobedience of the writ court's order on the part of the respondent.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

On the facts and discussion above, the present contempt petition has no merit and is dismissed.

¶14

Key takeaways

Notices, if any, issued against the respondent are discharged.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 17, Manish Kumar, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:13831; Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4538 of 2024; decided 6.3.2025 — DISMISSED. Applicant Deepak Kumar Tiwari sought contempt action against Shri Pawan Singh, Tehsildar, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh, for alleged non-compliance with the writ court's judgment/order dated 9.8.2023 in PIL No.712 of 2023, by which the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to apply under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the competent authority was directed to decide such application expeditiously. The order was produced in the Section 67 proceeding on 21.08.2023, but the proceeding remained pending; the court found that between 23.10.2023 and 3.3.2025 the matter was listed on 27 dates and on 23 of them the lawyers were abstaining from judicial work (including 18 of 19 dates between 30.10.2023 and 18.11.2024). Concluding there was no willful or intentional disobedience by the respondent, the court dismissed the contempt petition and discharged the notices, if any, issued against him.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13831

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4538 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tiwari @ Deppak Tiwari @ Deepak Tiwari Opposite Party :- Shri Pawan Singh Tehsildar Tehsil Patti Distt. Pratapgarh Counsel for Applicant :- Dev Mani Mishra,Abhisek Kumar Dixit

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Sri Pawan Singh, Tehsildar (Incharge), Tehsil Patti, District - Pratapgarh is present.

¶7

The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non-compliance of the judgement and order dated 9.8.2023 passed in PIL No.712 of 2023, the relevant extract of the order is quoted hereinbelow :

¶8

" 7. Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case, the writ petition, is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before competent authority and in case such an application is made within two weeks from today, the competent authority is directed to proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. "

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the direction issued by the writ court to decide the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously, but till date the proceedings are pending and no decision has been taken. The said act on the part of the respondent is nothing but intentional and willful disobedience of judgement and order passed by the writ court.

¶10

On the other hand learned standing counsel has submitted that the respondent is making all efforts to decide the matter as directed by the writ court but due to the strike by the lawyers the matter could not be decided till date and there is no intentional and willful disobedience on the part of the respondent.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the judgement and order dated 9.8.2023 was served or produced in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on

¶12

21.08.2023. Thereafter, since 30.10.2023 till 18.11.2024 the case was listed or dates were fixed on 19 occasions, out of which on 18 occasions or date fixed, the lawyers were abstaining from judicial work. The Tehsildar i.e. respondent, who is present in person in the Court, has provided copy of order-sheets regarding the subsequent dates fixed in the matter from 4.12.2024 till 3.3.2025 and out of 8 dates fixed, on 5 dates the lawyers were abstaining from work, so out of 27 dates fixed between 23.10.2023 till 3.3.2025 on 23 dates the lawyers were abstaining from the judicial work.

¶13

Under these circumstances, it could not be said that there is willful and intentional disobedience on the part of the respondent.

¶14

In view of he above facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt petition has not merit, hence it is dismissed.

¶15

The notices, if any, issued against the respondent is hereby discharged.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 S. Kumar

¶17

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

Deepak Kumar Tiwari @ Deppak Tiwari @ Deepak Tiwari v. Shri Pawan Singh Tehsildar Tehsil Patti Distt. Pratapgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Tiwari @ Deppak Tiwari @ Deepak Tiwari v. Shri Pawan Singh Tehsildar Tehsil Patti Distt. Pratapgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aga Khan Vs Abhishek Anand, D.M., Sitapur

Dharmesh Rai Vs Sri Kunal Silku, Director, Training and Employment, Lko.

Jainual Ahmad Ansari Vs Sri Kunal Silku, Director, Training and Employment, Lko.

Deepak Kumar Tiwari @ Deppak Tiwari @ Deepak Tiwari vs Shri Pawan Singh Tehsildar Tehsil Patti Distt. Pratapgarh

Deena Nath Pathak and Others vs Smt. Monika Rani, D.M., Bahraich

Seth Singh vs State of Up and another