Disposed¶16

Sahul Srivastava v. Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, District Basic Education Officer, Mau

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2026CAPL/7005/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application (civil) — Allahabad High Court, Court No. 9 — non-compliance with writ Court order — District Basic Education Officer, Mau — representation pending before forensic lab — order dated 09.12.2024 — last opportunity of two weeks to comply — personal presence of Officer directed on 16.04.2026 — Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

What did the court decide?

As a last opportunity, two weeks' time (and no more) granted to the opposite party to comply with the writ Court's order; matter listed on 16.04.2026, on which date the Officer shall remain present in the Court. ¶16

Sahul Srivastava vs Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, District Basic Education Officer, Mau — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7005 of 2024

¶3

Sahul Srivastava

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, District Basic Education Officer, Mau	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	Satya Prakash Shukla

¶6

Court No. - 9

¶7

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶8

Shri Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, District Basic Education Officer, Mau is present in the Court today, who is identified by Shri Abhijeet Mukherji, counsel appearing for the opposite party.

¶9

An alleged compliance affidavit has been filed today, which is taken on record.

¶10

From the perusal of the order of the writ Court, it is clear that the opposite party was to take a decision on the claim of the applicant within two weeks.

¶11

More than one and half years have elapsed but the Officer has not complied the order of the writ Court. In the compliance affidavit, it has been stated that the representation has been decided on 09.12.2024.

¶12

From the perusal of the order passed by the Officer, it appears that the matter is pending before the forensic lab and in view of the said fact, the representation has not been decided. The order is dated 09.12.2024. More than 15 months have elapsed since the passing of the order by the opposite party. From the perusal of the said order, it is clear that the order of the writ Court has not been complied with.

¶13

When the Court interacted with the Officer concerned, he submitted that two weeks time may be granted for complying the order of the writ Court.

¶14

CAPL No. 7005 of 2024

¶15

¶16

As a last opportunity, two weeks' time and no more is granted to the opposite party to comply the said order.

¶17

List this matter on 16.04.2026. On the said date, the Officer shall remain present in the Court.

¶18

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶19

March 30, 2026

¶20

A. V. Singh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sahul Srivastava v. Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, District Basic Education Officer, Mau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahul Srivastava v. Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, District Basic Education Officer, Mau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manorama Mishra vs Shri Satyam Mishra, Additional District Magistrate (City) and 2 Others

Virendra Pal Dwivedi vs Sri Vinay Kumar Gill, Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary)

Sainik Shakari Awaas Samiti vs Sri Bachoo Singh

Santosh Kumar Tripathi vs Shri Santosh Kumar Rai, District Inspector of Schools and 3 Others

Smt. Deepika Joshi vs Sri Raj Bahadur Ram Dev Yadav, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court

Dr Archana Agnihotri and 9 Others vs Dr Brindavan Lal Sharma