Akshay Veer Singh and 4 Others vs Ajay Chauhan, Prin. Secy., Deptt. of P.W.D. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 93 of 2025 Applicant :- Akshay Veer Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- Ajay Chauhan, Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of P.W.D. Lko. And Another

¶3

Counsel for Applicant :- Anshuman Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh,Geetika Yadav,Nishchay Anand

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

On 07.03.2025, following order was passed:

¶6

"1. The present contempt application has been preferred for non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 06.11.2024, passed by the writ court in Writ A No. 2381 of 1995. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶7

"Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the competent authority who is said to be the Engineer-InChief, Public Works Department, Lucknow i.e the respondent no. 2 seeking benefit of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Kamrul Haq (supra) along with the comprehensive representation. In case, such a representation is made within a period of two weeks from today then the respondent no. 2 shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order upon the same which order would be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶8

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case."

¶9

2. Learned State Counsel, on the basis of the affidavit of compliance filed by the respondent no. 2 Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Engineer-in-Chief, Design and Planing, U.P Public Works Department, Lucknow has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the writ court has been complied with and the present contempt application has become infructuous.

¶10

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this court to the order dated 03.02.2025, which is alleged to be passed in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the writ court, wherein the claim of the applicants has been rejected on the ground which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶11

" ददिनननांक 28.01.2025 इस प्रदतिबन्ध कके सनथ लनभ अननुमन्य दकयन गयन हहै दक उक

¶12

मन० सरर्वोच्च न्यनयनलय एरनां मन० उच्च न्यनयनलय दनरन भदरष्य मम पनररति हहोनके रनलके दनररययों कके अधधीन हहोगम और इसके दकसधी अन्य रनदि / प्रकरर मम दृषनन्ति न मननन जनयकेगन। "

¶13

4. It is further submitted that against the judgment passed in the Special Appeal No. 56 of 2022, in the case of Kamrul Haq and others versus State of U.P and others, the benefit of which has been given to the applicant by the writ court, an S.L.P was preferred which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 13.08.2024, the copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure no. 3 to the affidavit filed alongwith the contempt application.

¶14

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, it is found that the reasons indicated in the alleged compliance order dated 13.08.2025, as mentioned above, is non existing as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already dismissed the S.L.P by order dated 13.08.2024 and the judgment passed in the Special Appeal, in the case of Kamrul Haq and others (supra), the benefit of which has been given to the applicant by the writ court has been upheld and except that, no other matter is pending before this Court.

¶15

6. The said action on the part of the respondent no. 2 is nothing but a willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ court by rejecting the representation on nonexisting ground, though it was well in their knowledge as the copy of the judgment/order passed by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court is on record in the present case.

¶16

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, a case under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Rules framed under Section 23 of Contempt of Courts Act,1971) is made out, accordingly, the following charge is being framed against the respondent no. 2 i.e Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Engineer-in-Chief, Design and Planning, U.P Public Works Department, Lucknow :-

¶17

"Why contemnor - respondent no. 2 be not punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgement and order dated 06.11.2024 passed in Writ A No. 2381 of 1995".

¶18

8. The respondent no. 2 i.e. Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Engineer-in-Chief, Design and Planning, U.P Public Works Department, Lucknow is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid charge.

¶19

9. List this case in the in the week commencing 24.03.2025.

¶20

10. On that date, the respondent shall appear in person. "

¶21

On the last date, two weeks' time was granted to the

¶22

respondents to file reply to the charge framed but instead of filing reply, application for grant of time to file reply has been moved by the respondent no.-2 on the ground that representation of applicants was considered in accordance with law, thereafter, it was decided with a reasoned and speaking order.

¶23

It is undisputed fact that after considering the decision passed on representation of applicants, charge was framed. Therefore, application for grant of time filed by respondent no.2 is hereby rejected.

¶24

List this case on 04.04.2025 for order.

¶25

On the next date, Officer present today shall again appear in person before this Court.

¶26

Order Date :- 28.3.2025 V. Sinha

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akshay Veer Singh and 4 Others v. Ajay Chauhan, Prin. Secy., Deptt. of P.W.D. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Veer Singh and 4 Others v. Ajay Chauhan, Prin. Secy., Deptt. of P.W.D. 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

Dileep Kumar Verma Vs Shri Avdhesh Kumar Yadav, Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Khand, M.V.V.N.L. Ambedkar Nagar

Ajit Kumar Vs Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Engineer in Chief and Head of Deptt. Irrigation and Water Resources Lko.

Vijay Kumar Sinsh Vs Sri Bhawani Singh Kangarot, Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Lko. and Others

Pawan Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Prakash Dubey and Another vs State of U.P. Represented Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Surendra Nath Pandey vs Dr. Anand Kumar Singh, v.C., Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agri. and Tech. Kanpur and Others