Syed Izhar Ali Vs Sri Rajeev Kumar, Chief Engineer (Electrical/ Mechanical) U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) Lko. and Another

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 842 of 2025

Applicant :- Syed Izhar Ali

Opposite Party :- Sri Rajeev Kumar, Chief Engineer (Electrical/ Mechanical) U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sabir Ali

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment and orders dated 20.02.2025 and 24.02.2025 passed on Writ-A No. 883 of 2025.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the since the order dated 20.02.2025 was not being complied with, the present contempt application has been moved and on 26.03.2025, notices were issued to the respondents, which were served upon them on 26.04.2025, but the order of writ Court was not complied with. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 28.04.2025, 19.05.2025 and 29.05.2025.

¶9

On 29.05.2025, this Court while rejecting the deferment application, posted the matter for today for the purposes of framing of charges on respondent no. 1.

¶10

Order dated 29.05.2025 reads as under :

¶11

"1. Heard.

¶12

The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the orders dated 20.02.2025 and 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 883 of 2025.

¶13

It is evident from the record that notices were issued to the respondents on 26.03.2025. As per office report dated 26.04.2025 based on the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, the notices have been served upon respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶14

Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has filed an application for deferment of the contempt proceeding on the ground that stay vacation application has been filed on 26.03.2025. He has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4007-4008 of 2020 on 08.12.2020 and has submitted

¶15

that as the stay vacation application has been filed, the contempt proceeding should be deferred.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant, while opposing the prayer of the respondents as regards deferment of contempt proceeding, vehemently submits that the judgement relied by learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable in the present case. He also submits that in the present case, the interim order was passed after hearing learned counsel for the respondents, namely, Sri Rishabh Kapoor, hence, the application for deferment is liable to be rejected.

¶17

Considering the contents of the order passed by the writ Court, the pleadings made in the contempt application, contents of the deferment application as well as judgement relied by learned counsel for the respondents, it is evident that the interim order was passed on 20.02.2025 after hearing learned counsel for the respondents, namely, Sri Rishabh Kapoor. Thereafter, correction application was also filed, which was allowed on 24.02.2025 after hearing Sri Rishabh Kapoor. Therefore, the judgement relied by learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable. Accordingly, the application for deferment is hereby rejected.

¶18

List this case on 14.07.2025.

¶19

By the next date, respondent no.1 shall file affidavit of compliance, failing which, he shall appear in person before this Court for the purposes of framing of charge."

¶20

Today, Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondents files application for deferment of contempt proceedings on the ground that a S.L.P. is preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9th July, 2025 against the order dated 29.05.2025 and submits that there is a possibility of listing of the aforesaid S.L.P. within two weeks. It is, thus, prayed that the contempt proceedings may be deferred.

¶21

It is evident from the record that on 29.05.2025, application for deferment was rejected with the direction to the respondent no. 1 to file affidavit of compliance by the next date of listing, i.e., today (14.07.2025), failing which, he shall appear before this Court for the purposes of framing of charges. However, in spite of filing affidavit of compliance, again a deferment application has been filed on the ground of filing of S.L.P.

¶22

Admittedly, against the order passed by this Court, which was passed on 29th May, 2025, no remedy was availed by the respondent no. 1 in the month of June, 2025 and the same has been preferred on 09.07.2025, which shows that

¶23

the respondent-Officer had not paid any attention to the order passed by this Court.

¶24

In view of above facts and circumstances, the deferment application is hereby rejected with the cost of Rs.100/-. Respondent no. 1 is directed to pay the cost amount before the Senior Registrar of this Court by the next date of listing.

¶25

List this case on 23.07.2025.

¶26

Respondent no. 1 is directed to file affidavit of compliance by the next date of listing, failing which, charges shall be framed against him.

¶27

Respondent no. 1, who is present before this Court shall again appear before this Court on the next date of listing.

¶28

In case, the cost amount is not deposited by the next date of listing, as directed aforesaid, appropriate orders shall be passed for recovery of the same on the next date.

¶29

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 VKS

¶30

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

Syed Izhar Ali v. Sri Rajeev Kumar, Chief Engineer (Electrical/ Mechanical) U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Izhar Ali v. Sri Rajeev Kumar, Chief Engineer (Electrical/ Mechanical) U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravi Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, and Another

Anshika Gupta Vs Mr. Lalit Kumar Kapil, Regional Officer Central Board Secondary Edu. Allahabad

Shushil Kumar @ Shushil Kumar Pathak and Another vs Shri Sumit Kumar Singh Tehsildar Tehsil Milkipur District Ayodhya

Mohd. Ebrahim Vs Mohd. Fareed Ahmad Khan Sub Divisional Officer Distt. Raibareli

Ram Prakash Yadav @ Ramprakash Yadaw Vs Sri Abhishek Anand, Collector / Distt. Magistrate Distt. Sitapur

Shabiha Bano Vs Bholendra Pratap Singh, District Basic Edu. Officer District Ambedkar Nagar