Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUSHIL KUMAR TIWARI versus H.L. GUPTA & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. H.L. Gupta & Others - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 4549 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 324 (5 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 30

CIVIL MISC.CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 4549 OF 2006

Sushil Kumar Tiwari- Petitioner

Versus

Shri H.L. Gupta, Special Secretary/

Officiating Secretary Education (Secondary)

U.P. Government Lucknow and others Opposite parties

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

After seeking adjournments on 12.12.2006 and 3.1.2007, the matter was heard yesterday, and has come up today as unlisted matter.

I have heard applicant-Sushil Kumar Tiwari in person and Shri M.S. Pipersenia, learned Standing Counsel and perused the counter affidavit of  Smt. Farhana Siddiqui, District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur dated 3.1.2007 and the counter affidavit of Shri Sanjay Mohan, Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Lucknow dated 12.12.2006.

The judgement and order dated 19.8.2006, passed in Contempt Petition No. 438 of 2003 between Sushil Kumar Tiwari vs. D.S. Bagga, Chief Secretary and others, after hearing counsel for the parties including the standing counsel, has become final. The operative portion of the order is given as follows:-

"The powers of the court in Contempt Petition may be limited but in special circumstances the Court is not denuded of the powers under Article 226 of India to do complete justice between the aprties. It is not denied that the petitioner is still teaching and that his claim is similar to the case of Ms. Kamala Kumari Singh. The claim of the petitioner is consequently allowed on same terms as in the case of Ms. Kamal Kumari Singh. The order dated 19.10.2004 has already been quashed. The representation of the petitioner has not been decided. The same direction is as such issued to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to provide grant-in-aid to Intermediate College and to pay salary to the petitioner regularly for the period after 13.7.1998. The Principal,Government Intermediate College, Mirzapur is already functioning as administrator of the college."

The applicant has not been paid salary till date.

In the counter affidavit of Shri Sanjay Mohan, Director of Education, Secondary, U.P. Lucknow, a prayer has been made to defer the hearing of the Contempt Petition till the disposal of  Special Appeal No. 210 (D) of 2000 (now 262 of 2003) and to discharge the contempt notice. The special appeal is against the order dated 14.10.1999 in which the Court had directed the State Government to take prompt suitable action to provide grant-in-aid to the institution, which is stated to be the institution like the institution in question. The deponent has also relied upon the proposal given by him to Shri Hira Lal Gupta, Special Secretary, Education, Government of U.P. on 23.6.2006 in pursuance of some query made by the Advocate General, UP. In this letter, it was proposed that if the present owner of the factory is prepared for 'prantiyakaran'  of the school and is prepared to hand over the land and building of the school to Secondary, Education Department, the Government will consider to take over the school without taking responsibility of the previous debts.

In the counter affidavit of Smt. Farhana Siddiqui, District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur it is stated that  'Vitya Viheen Manyata' was given to Intermediate section of the college and that the expenditure of Intermediate section has to be incurred from the source of the institution and that the institution is not in the grant-in-aid list.

This court had passed directions in the same terms as Lucknow Bench has decided the writ petition of similarly situate person of the same college. Learned standing counsel is not in a position to state whether any application for recalling the order and special appeal has been filed against the judgement and order passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court. Both Shri Sanjay Mohan and Smt. Farhana Siddiqui are taking same objection which they had taken earlier. They insist that until the land and building is handed over, the school cannot be given grant-in-aid. The object is to provide educational facility for children and not to take over land and building.

It is apparent that once again the State Government is trying to evade the issue and is not complying with the directions issued by this Court.

This court will not see a situation where the mandamus issued after hearing the parties is being disobeyed on the same ground on which the contest was put before the order was made. The request to wait for hearing of the special appeal of the year 2000 in which similar questions are stated to be raised is wholly misconceived. The judgement between the parties has become final and direction has to be complied by the respondents.

In the facts and circumstances, the Court is prima facie satisfied that both Shri Sanjay Mohan and Smt. Farhana Siddiqui have wilfully flouted the order of  this Court and have not made the payment of arrears as well as current salary to the applicant inspite of full knowledge of the directions dated 19.8.2006. They are charged accordingly and are required to show cause  by appearing in person on the next date as to why the Court may not proceed to punish them for committing contempt under Section 11 (12) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

List on 16.1.2007. Copy of the order be given to Shri M.S. Pipersania, learned Standing Counsel  for information to the contemnors on payment of usual charges today.

Dt. 5.1.2007

RKP/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.