Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRADEEP SINGH versus KUMARI KAMLESH & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pradeep Singh v. Kumari Kamlesh & Another - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 819 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 1674 (10 December 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

Court No. 48

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 819 of 1995

Pradeep Singh                                               .......Petitioner

Versus

Kumari Kamlesh Priyadarshani and another ......Respondents.

*******

Hon'ble S. P.Mehrotra, J.

The present Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, inter-alia, prayed that the opposite parties be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by not complying with the direction given in the order dated 12th July, 1994 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10922 of 1992.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the Contempt Petition that for redressal of his grievances, the petitioner-applicant filed the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10922 of 1992 ; and that the said writ petition  was allowed by its order dated 12th July, 1994. Copy of the said order dated 12th July, 1994 has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition.

The relevant portion of the said order dated 12th July, 1994 passed in the said writ petition is reproduced below :

�?? In the result this writ petition succeeds and same is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to make the payment of salary to the petitioner of the post of L.T. Grade teacher w.e.f. 1-2-92. The arrears of the salary should be calculated by the respondent No. 1 within a period of three months from the date on which a certified copy of this judgment has been filed before it by either of the party to the petition. The amount of arrears of salary to be paid to the petitioner within two months thereafter. The petitioner shall be paid regular salary of the post till he holds the said post. This judgment will not give any right to the petitioner to continue on the post indefinitely nor any right of regularization as his services on the said post. As and when the post becomes available permanently the respondents shall make regular appointment thereon as per the relevant rules and in case the petitioner is not selected for the said post in open selection his services are to be disposed with to make the forum for the selected candidate.

No orders as to costs.�??

It is, inter-alia, further stated in the Contempt Petition that despite repeated request to the opposite parties, directions contained in the said order dated 12th July, 1994 have been complied with.

It further appears by the order dated 17th May, 1995, notices were directed to be issued to the opposite parties to show cause as to why they be not prosecuted for punishment for the alleged contempt of Court by flouting the said order dated 12th July, 1994 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10922 of 1992.  The said order dated 17th May, 1995 passed on the Contempt Petition is as follows :

�??Heard.

Perused the contempt petition, affidavit and its annexures.

Only considered the submissions.

Since I find a prima facie case for the alleged contempt of Court, hence it is ordered.

Admit.

Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 directing each of them to appear in person on 8-8-95 or through the learned counsel stating all the facts on oath as to why each of them shall not be prosecuted for punishment for the alleged contempt of court fro flouting the order of this Hon�??ble Court dated 12-7-94 passed in writ petition No. 10922 of 1992.

Respondents are hereby directed to make all endeavors to see that Hon�??ble Court�??s order is strictly complied with, if in the meantime, it has not been complied with.�??

By the said order dated 17th May, 1995, Kamlesh Priyadarshani (Opposite Party No. 1) put in appearance and filed her counter affidavit sworn on 10th September, 1995. Paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the said counter affidavit which are relevant in the present context are quoted below :

�??3. That, in compliance of the judgment dated 12-7-1994 the deponent has issued a letter dated 25-8-1995 to the Manager of the College (Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College, Bansgaon, Gorakhpur) for submitting the pay bill of Sri Pradeep Singh, Assistant teacher in the College. The photocopy of the letter dated 25-8-1995issued by the deponent in compliance of the High Court�??s judgment dated 12-7-1994 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. 1.

4. That, the judgment dated 12-7-1994 passed in writ petition No. 10922 of 1992, Pradeep Singh Versus District Inspector of Schools Gorakhpur and other has been complied with and the salary bill has been passed on 4-9-95.�??

It is evident from a perusal of the above quoted paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said counter affidavit that the direction given in the said order dated 12th July, 1994 were complied with by the concerned opposite party No.1.

The present Contempt Petition was list before the Court on 7th October 2004.

 On the said date, i.e. 7th October, 2004, the case was passed over and directed to be listed in the next cause list and the learned counsel for the parties were not present even though the case was taken up in the revised list.

The case, thereafter, listed before the Court on 15th October, 2004, and the case was passed over and the learned counsel for the parties was not present even though  the case was taken up in the revised list. The case was ,thereafter, listed before the Court on 18th November, 2004. On the said date, the case was again passed over and the learned counsel for the parties are not present.

The learned counsel for the parties were not present, when the case was taken up in revised list.

Pursuant to the said order dated 18th November, 2004, the case was listed on 25th February, 2004. On the said date, i.e. 25th November 2004, learned counsel for the parties were not again 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 25th November, 2004, the case is listed before the Court today.

The case has been taken up in the revised list. Learned counsel for the parties are not present.

In view of the averments made in the said counter affidavit, as noted above, and in view of the continued absence of the learned counsel for the parties.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the opposite parties cannot be held guilty having committed contempt of this Court, the show cause notices issued to the opposite parties are liable to be discharged.

The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed.

In consequence of the dismissal of the Contempt Petition, show cause notices issued to the opposite parties stand discharged.

Dt.10-12-04/Contempt Petn.819 of 95/AK  


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.