Suresh Chandra Vs Sri Chandra Vijay Singh, District… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

Suresh Chandra Vs Sri Chandra Vijay Singh, District… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the fresh order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the respondent, stated to restore the earlier order dated 14.12.2010 quashed by the writ court, amounts to wilful and intentional disobedience of the writ court judgment dated 07.05.2024 attracting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ court's direction was only that a fresh order be passed after considering the applicant's reply dated 02.11.2010; that reply was considered and thereafter the order was passed, so the fresh order dated 04.01.2025 involved no disobedience of the judgment dated 07.05.2024.

Ratio / Principle

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant — that the respondent cannot pass a fresh order similar to the order dated 14.12.2010 quashed by the writ court, and that after quashing of the earlier order the claim could not be rejected — are not acceptable, because the writ court nowhere directed the authorities not to pass any order against the applicant.

Key takeaways

In view of the above, the present contempt application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 8 — Contempt Application (Civil) No. 513 of 2025 (Suresh Chandra v. Sri Chandra Vijay Singh, District Magistrate Ayodhya), Manish Kumar, J., decided November 21, 2025: DISMISSED. The applicant alleged wilful and intentional disobedience of the writ court judgment dated 07.05.2024, under which the orders dated 29.05.2012 and 14.12.2010 passed by respondents No.2 & 3 had been quashed and the matter remitted to respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order after considering the applicant's reply dated 02.11.2010 (with liberty to seek promotion/salary via representation, to be considered within six weeks). The respondent thereafter passed a fresh order dated 04.01.2025, said by counsel to restore the quashed order dated 14.12.2010, and punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was sought. Held: the writ court nowhere directed the authorities not to pass any order against the applicant; its sole direction was that a fresh order be passed after considering the applicant's reply, which was duly considered before the order dated 04.01.2025 was passed (per the Standing Counsel, a detailed fresh order). The contempt application was therefore devoid of merit and dismissed. No precedent cited.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 513 of 2025

Suresh Chandra

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Sri Chandra Vijay Singh, District Magistrate Ayodhya

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Akhlaq Ali, Shabana Akhlaq
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 the judgment and order dated 07.05.2024. The relevant paragraphs of the same are quoted hereinbelow:-

"18. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 29.05.2012 and 14.12.2010 passed by the respondents No.2 & 3, copies of which are annexure No.1 & 7 to the petition respectively, are quashed. The matter is remitted to the competent authority i.e. respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order after considering the reply of the petitioner dated 02.11.2010. In case the competent authority is of the view that the said reply is not clear, it would be open for him to require the petitioner to submit a fresh reply which would also be considered in accordance with law.

19. So far as the claim of the petitioner for promotion and release of the salary is concerned, it would be open to the petitioner to submit a representation in this regard before the competent authority within a period of two weeks from today along with the certified copy of this order which would be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law along with the relevant rules within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation. "

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the judgment, a fresh order dated 04.01.2025 has been passed by the respondent, restoring the earlier order dated 14.12.2010 which was quashed by the writ Court, hence, the action on the part of the respondent amounts to wilful and intentional disobedience of the judgment and order passed by the writ Court and he is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that after passing of the judgment and order in the writ petition, the reply of the applicant was considered and a detailed fresh order has been passed on 04.01.2025.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the writ Court has quashed the order dated 14.12.2010 with a direction that the respondent may pass afresh order after

CAPL No. 513 of 2025

2

considering the reply of the applicant dated 02.11.2010. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent cannot pass afresh order similar to the order passed dated 14.12.2010 as it was quashed by the writ Court. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant that after quashing of the earlier order in the writ petition, the claim of the petitioner could not be rejected. Both these submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant are not acceptable for the reason that the writ Court has nowhere directed the authorities not to pass any order against the applicant. The direction was to pass an order after considering the reply of the applicant which has been considered and thereafter the order has been passed.

In view of above, the present contempt application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

November 21, 2025 Nitesh

(Manish Kumar,J.)

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