Smt. Sonam @ Sonam Tiwari Vs Dr. Nidhi Rathore Block Development Officer Development Block Hariyavon Hardoi and 6 Others

Court No. - 4

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 526 of 2025

Applicant :- Smt. Sonam @ Sonam Tiwari Opposite Party :- Dr. Nidhi Rathore Block Development Officer Development Block Hariyavon Hardoi And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Surendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶5

Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the writ court dated 17.09.2024 in Writ A No. 7825 of 2024, Smt. Sonam Tiwari vs. Principal Secretary, Home Govt. of U.P. Lukcnow and others has not been complied and copy of the family registrar has not been provided by the respondent no. 1 i.e. Block Development Officer till date, despite an application dated 25.09.2024 submitted to him through speed post. He further submits that the said application has been received by the respondent no. 1 and she had also called to the applicant but she has not met, therefore, she is committing willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court.

¶6

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, I have perused the record and relevant rules.

¶7

This Court had disposed of the Writ A No. 7825 of 2024, with two directions. The first is with regard to disposal of application for compassionate appointment under dying in harness rules after considering the application of the applicant as well as the other claimant i.e. Ms. Rubi Shukla @ Rubi Bajpai, who is also claiming herself to be the wife of the deceased employee. The second is that it is needless to say that if the petitioner has approached for copy of the family register from the opposite party no. 7, the copy thereof may be provided

¶8

to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law so that the aforesaid documents could be produced before the competent authority.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has alleged non compliance of the second direction/observation only at this stage on the ground that the copy of the family register has not been provided in compliance of the order passed by this Court.

¶10

This Court has provided that if the petitioner has approached for copy of Family Register from the opposite party no. 7, the copy thereof may be provided strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

The provision for providing copy of family register has been made in the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1970"). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 provides that every person can inspect the register and obtain certified copy thereof of any entry on payment of requisite fee in accordance with Rule 70 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1970 is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶12

" 7. Custody and preservation of the register-- (1) The Secretary of the Gram Sabha shall be responsible for the safe custody of the family register.

¶13

(2) Every person shall have a right to inspect the register and to get attested copy of any entry or extract therefrom in such manner and on payment of such fees, if any, as may be specified in Rule 73 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules."

¶14

Rule 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 makes the provision for copies of documents and fees thereof of gram panchayat. The sub-Rule (1) of Rule 73 provides that application for certified copy of any document of the gram panchayat would be submitted to the secretary of the gram panchayat on a plain paper. Further sub-rules make the provision as to how the fees would be paid etc.

¶15

In view of above, it is apparent that the application for copy of the Family Register can be made to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat but admittedly, no application has been moved to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The application has been moved to the Block Development Officer, whereas the observation for the certified copy has been made for providing by the respondent no. 7 in the writ petition strictly in accordance with law, whereas as per law the Block Development Officer is not competent to provide the copy. No other rule/provision has been placed before this Court. Nothing else has also been pressed by learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant may approach to the concerned court or may avail the appropriate remedy as may be available under law, if so advised and intended.

¶16

With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed . Order Date :- 25.2.2025 Raj

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sonam @ Sonam Tiwari v. Dr. Nidhi Rathore Block Development Officer Development Block Hariyavon Hardoi and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sonam @ Sonam Tiwari v. Dr. Nidhi Rathore Block Development Officer Development Block Hariyavon Hardoi and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yeswant Kumar Sonker Vs Smt. Sunita Singh, Social Welfare Officer, Lko.

Adesh Kumar Singh Vs Diksha Joshi, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahabad, Hardoi

Gyanesh Kumar Dikshit Vs M. Devaraj, Principal Secretary to Govt. of U.P., (Acting As Addl. Chief Secy., State Tax, Lucknow)

Dilip Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Jai Prakash vs Sri Veer Ratan Mohan, the Regional Manager (Rbo-Vii) State Bank of India Local Head Office, Lko.

Smt. Sonam @ Sonam Tiwari vs Dr. Nidhi Rathore Block Development Officer Development Block Hariyavon Hardoi and 6 Others