Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6341 of 2019 Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Subhash Chandra Yadav, Up-Ziladhikari Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
By order dated 26.2.2018 passed in Writ C No. 7488 of 2018 filed by the applicants, the Court directed as under:
"Heard Shri Abhishek Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhisekh Shukla, the learned standing counsel.
This writ petition has been filed for seeking an appropriate direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.1/Up-Ziladhikari, Handia, District Allahabad, to decide Case No.T20160203041849 of 2016, (Dharmendra Kumar and others vs. Shiv Dular and others), under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 Village Beenda, Chak Mukim, Pargana Kewai, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad within a stipulated period.
Learned Standing Counsel states that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending and the same be disposed off by giving appropriate direction to the respondent concerned.
This writ petition is disposed off with the direction to respondent no.1/Up- Ziladhikari, Handia, District Allahabad, to decide Case No.T20160203041849 of 2016, (Dharmendra Kumar and others vs. Shiv Dular and others), under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 Village Beenda, Chak Mukim, Pargana Kewai, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad keeping in view the observations of this Court made in Writ-C No. 6635 of 2012 (Chandra Bali Vs. Addl. Commissioner and others) decided on 7.2.2012, without granting any frivolous adjournments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he shall not seek any adjournment and so also is expected from the private opposite parties in the mutation case, except for strong and compelling reasons, else would attract an exemplary cost of not less than Rs.250/- payable to the other side.
It is clarified that the proceedings as far as possible should not be repeatedly adjourned, merely on the ground that the Presiding Officer is busy in administrative work."
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party but the opposite party has wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicants shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self- addressed envelope of the applicants with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicants to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Jaswant