Dismissed¶12

Vipin Kumar v. Ms. Kavita Thakur Tehsildar Tehsil Haidergarh Barabanki

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – civil contempt

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2026CAPL/394/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manish Kumar, J., February 2, 2026 — Contempt Application (CIVIL) No. 394 of 2026, Vipin Kumar v. Ms. Kavita Thakur, Tehsildar, Tehsil Haidergarh, Barabanki — contempt for delay in complying with a 90-day direction in PIL No. 491 of 2025 dismissed; no wilful or intentional disobedience where lawyers' abstention from judicial work caused delay on eight of ten listing dates.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the applicant; the respondent was not punished, with liberty reserved to the applicant to approach this Court at the appropriate stage. ¶12

Vipin Kumar vs Ms. Kavita Thakur Tehsildar Tehsil… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 394 of 2026

Vipin Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Ms. Kavita Thakur Tehsildar Tehsil Haidergarh Barabanki

¶7

			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vimal Kishor Qamar	Singh,	Premkant, Wazhul
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:
Court No.- 8

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

The present contempt application has been preferred against the alleged non compliance of judgment and order dated 22.05.2025 passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 491 of 2025, whereby the writ Court has directed the respondent to conclude the pending proceedings positively within a period of ninety days.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the copy of the order has been served upon the respondent by registered post on 23.08.2025 and thereafter the case was listed on 10 dates but the same has not been decided till date and three month's period has already been expired in the month of December, 2025, hence the respondent is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through the record of the case, particularly the order-sheet which has been enclosed along with the paper book, it is found that after the service, the case was listed on ten dates, out of which on eight dates, the lawyers were abstaining from judicial work, hence the delay in deciding the matter cannot be attributable to the respondent as there is no wilful or intentional disobedience on the part of the respondent.

¶12

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

However, it is always open for the applicant to approach this Court at the appropriate stage.

¶14

February 2, 2026 Nitesh

¶15

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶16

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

Vipin Kumar v. Ms. Kavita Thakur Tehsildar Tehsil Haidergarh Barabanki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar v. Ms. Kavita Thakur Tehsildar Tehsil Haidergarh Barabanki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juvenile X Thru. Natural Guardian Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Rajit Ram Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Pramod Kumar Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mata Deen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Chetram and 4 Others vs Ms. Punya Salila Srivastava Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and 6 Others

Juvenile Offender X Thru. Guardian/Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another