Dismissed¶22

Akhand Pratap Singh v. Sandeep Singh, S.H.O. Cantt Ayodhya and 9 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2026CAPL/249/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application dismissed; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; alleged non-compliance/violation of interim status-quo order dated 07.08.2025 in Writ B No. 737 of 2025 (listing 02.09.2025); alleged destruction of standing crop by respondent nos. 2 to 10 in collusion with respondent no. 1 (Sandeep Singh, S.H.O. Cantt Ayodhya); IGRS complaint (paper book page nos. 20 & 21) naming Ankur Yadav, Hausla Prasad Yadav and Pudeep Mishra; alleged violators neither parties to the writ petition nor arrayed in the contempt application; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Court No. 8; Manish Kumar, J.; decided January 28, 2026.

What did the court decide?

The present contempt application is devoid of merit, hence dismissed. ¶22

Akhand Pratap Singh vs Sandeep Singh, S.H.O. Cantt… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 249 of 2026

Akhand Pratap Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Sandeep Singh, S.H.O. Cantt Ayodhya And 9 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Chandra Prakash Srivastava, Mayank Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 8

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶11

The present contempt application has been preferred against the alleged non compliance of interim order dated 07.08.2025 passed in Writ B No. 737 of 2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶12

"1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1, 2 and 12, Shri Ankit Pande has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 4, which is taken on record and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha- respondent no. 4.

¶13

2. Issue notice to respondents no. 3, 5 to 11, returnable at an early date.

¶14

3. Steps in this regard may be taken by learned counsel for the petitioners within a week.

¶15

4. List on 02.09.2025. In the meanwhile, parties shall maintain status-quo as exists today.

¶16

5. By the next date of listing, respondents may file counter affidavit. "

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the order of status-quo, the respondent nos. 2 to 10 in collusion with the respondent no. 1 destroyed the standing crop of the applicant and violated the interim order passed in the writ petition, hence, the respondents are liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶18

On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant as to how it could be seen that the respondent nos. 2 to 10, in collusion with respondent no. 1 had destroyed the standing crop of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to page nos. 20 & 21 of the paper book i.e. IGRS complaint where the complaint has been made against Ankur Yadav, Hausla Prasad Yadav and Pudeep Mishra, who are not arrayed as respondent in the present contempt application.

¶19

It has further been asked as to who were the parties in the writ petition, learned counsel for the applicant has replied that the respondent nos. 2 to 10 were the parties in the writ petition, meaning hereby, the aforesaid persons who were named in the complaint were neither made party in the writ petition nor in the present contempt application.

¶20

CAPL No. 249 of 2026

¶21

¶22

In view of aforesaid, the present contempt application is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.

¶23

January 28, 2026 Nitesh

¶24

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶25

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

Akhand Pratap Singh v. Sandeep Singh, S.H.O. Cantt Ayodhya and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhand Pratap Singh v. Sandeep Singh, S.H.O. Cantt Ayodhya and 9 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

Similar cases

Dr. Shailendra Kumar Agrawal vs Sri Amit Kumar Ghosh Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko.

Abdul Nazir Khan vs Shri Haratheesh, Addl. General Manager/ Unit Head Iti Ltd. Raibareli and 2 Others

Amar Bahadur vs Sri Vachashpati Singh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Kunda Pratapgarh

Amresh Kumar Tyagi vs Padmaza Chauhan the Addl. Director General Fire Services Lko.

Arun Yadav and Another vs Shri Ram Babu Gupta, Managing Director U.P. State Warehousing Corp. Bhandaran Bhawan Lko.

Pyarelal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.