Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHAGGI & OTHERS versus RAM KISHAN SHARMA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhaggi & Others v. Ram Kishan Sharma - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 1165 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 1464 (22 November 2004)

 

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

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1165 of 1995

Bhaggi and others.............................. Petitioners/Applicants

Vs.

Ram Kishan Sharma........................Respondent/Opposite Party

Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

The present Contempt Petition purporting to be under Sections 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed, interalia, praying for punishing the opposite party for having committed contempt of this Court

It is, interalia, stated in the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition that for redressal of the grievances, the petitioners/applicants filed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12574 of 1993; and that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by its order dated 30.11.1993, interalia, directing the respondent no.3 in the said writ petition (namely, Rehabilitation Officer, Jhansi) to decide the representations of the petitioners/applicants . Copy of the said order dated 30.11.1993 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition. The said order dated 30.11.1993 is quoted below:

"The short contention of the petitioners is that their land had been acquired by respondents in the year 1972 on the assurance that they would be provided alternative agricultural land for carrying an agricultural operations, but no agricultural land has been given to fails them. It is averred that the petitioners been made several representations to respondent no.3, but they have not been disposed of by him till date.

On these facts, the petition is disposed of finally directing respondent no.3 to decide the petitioners' representations dated 18.3.1975, 26.7.1980, 21.7.1985 and 12.11.1992 (Annexure-3 to 6 respectively) within two months from the date a certified copy of this order, alongwith the copies of the representation is produced before him by the petitioners."

It is, interalia, further stated in the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition that despite representations having been made by the petitioners/applicants, the opposite party has not complied with the directions given in the said order dated 30.11.1993 passed in the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12574 of 1993.

On 14.8.1995, learned Standing Counsel was granted two weeks' time for filing counter affidavit in reply to the Contempt Petition.The said order dated 14.8.1995 is reproduced below:

"Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit.

List this matter after two weeks."

From a perusal of the record including the ordersheet of the Contempt Petition, it appears that after the said order dated 14.8.1995, the case was for the first time listed before the Court on 1.10.2004.

On the said date, i.e.,  1.10.2004, learned counsel for the petitioners / applicants was not present even when the case was taken up in the revised list. In the circumstances, the case was passed over, and was directed to be listed in the next cause list.

The case was again listed before the Court on 15.10.2004. On the said date, i.e.,  15.10.2004,learned counsel for the petitioners / applicants was again not present even when the case was taken up in the revised list. In the circumstances, the case was passed over, and was directed to be listed in the next cause list.

The case was thereafter listed before the Court on 16.11.2004. On the said date, i.e.,  16.11.2004, learned counsel for the petitioners /applicants was not present even when the case was taken up in the revised list. In the circumstances, the case was passed over, and was directed to be listed in the next cause list.

Pursuant to the said order dated 16.11.2004, the case is listed today. The case has been taken up today in the revised list. However, learned counsel for the petitioners/ applicants is not present.

In view of the controversy involved in the case, and in view of the continued absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants on various dates and even today, it appears that the present Contempt Petition has become infructuous.

Consequently, the Contempt Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Dt. 22.11.2004

safi


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.