Shri Ram @ Shri Ram Yadav vs Rajdev Ram Prajapati S.H.O. P.S. Sarojininagar Dist. Lko.

Present contempt application has been preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 against the alleged non compliance of the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that initially applicant had approached this Court by filing a Writ C No. 9738 of 2025 (Shri Ram Alias Shri Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ten others). The said writ petition was decided by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 26.09.2025. The said judgment and order is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶14

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State.

¶15

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :-

¶16

"1. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Lucknow, to protect the Petitioner's life and property under Sections 21, 22, 23 of the Act, 2007 and Rule 21 of the UP Rules, 2014, and decide the Petitioner's fresh representation dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure-7).

¶17

II. In view of the Petitioner's advanced age and fragile condition, kindly direct that the dispute between the Petitioner and private respondents be mandatorily referred to the Hon'ble Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench under Section 89 CPC, with a further direction for personal appearance and full cooperation of the parties, and for the mediation to be concluded within 60 days, with its report to be placed before this Hon'ble Court for appropriate consequential orders.

¶18

III. Direct Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to pay monthly maintenance to the Petitioner

¶19

CAPL No. 605 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

under Section 4 of the Act, 2007 during pendency of proceedings.

¶22

IV. Direct all respondents to maintain status quo regarding the property and restrain creation of third-party rights till conclusion of mediation."

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the petitioner's wife namely Smt. Krishawati and his two daughters and son in law, arrayed as respondent nos.6, 7,8, 9 and 10 are not letting the petitioner enter in his house and the petitioner is 80 years' old person. In this regard, the petitioner has made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Lucknow under the Senior Citizens' Act of 2007 and the Rules framed thereunder but his application has not been considered for maintenance and for interim relief.

¶24

4. We have gone through the applications made by the petitioner under Sections 21,22 and 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, copies of which have been annexed as Annexure Nos.4 and 5 to the writ petition. We find that the said applications are not in the proper format with sufficient details.

¶25

5. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with direction to the petitioner to file a well drafted application before the District Magistrate, Lucknow who shall nominate the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders taking into account the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kamlakant Mishra Vs. Additional Collector and others : Special Leave Petition (Civil) DNo.42786 of 2025 decided on 12.9.2025 and the law settled by Full Bench of this Court in Onkar Nath Gaur and another Vs. District Magistrate and others in Matters under Article 227 No.612 of 2024 decided on 27.5.2025. "

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed in the Writ Petition, the applicant has moved an application before the District Magistrate, who has directed the S.D.M. to take decision in the matter of the applicant. Thereafter, S.D.M. concerned has taken decision in favour of the applicant by passing an order dated 14.11.2025, which is not being complied with by the authorities, as such, the authorities are committed contempt and liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶27

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through the record of the case, it is found that firstly, the present contempt application is not maintainable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts is vested under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.The S.D.M. concerned has decided the matter in favour of the applicant. There is no such direction issued by the Writ Court for implementation of the order passed by the S.D.M. concerned in favour of the applicant under the provisions of U.P. Bharan Poshan evam Kalyan Adhiniyam.

¶28

CAPL No. 605 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt application is devoid of merit hence, dismissed.

¶31

February 13, 2026 Ashish

¶32

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shri Ram @ Shri Ram Yadav v. Rajdev Ram Prajapati S.H.O. P.S. Sarojininagar Dist. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ram @ Shri Ram Yadav v. Rajdev Ram Prajapati S.H.O. P.S. Sarojininagar Dist. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kayam Singh Ex. Dy.Superintendent of Police Vs Sri Devashish Panda Prin.Secy.Home Civil Sectt.Lko.and Ors.

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

Om Prakash Singh and 21 Others vs Shri Modak Rajesh D.Rao, Inspector General of Police D.I.G Lko.

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

Smt. Shama Khan vs Zabir Beg and 4 Others

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