Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3763 of 2019 Applicant :- Kamlesh Narayan Shukla Opposite Party :- Rakesh Singh,Consolidation Officer Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chand Saroj
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
As it has been alleged the opposite party has not complied with order dated 24.3.2015 passed in Writ B No. 15436 of 2015 (Parwati Devi @ Bela Devi Vs. Consolidation Officer And 2 Others). For ready reference, the order dated 24.3.2015 is reproduced herein below.
"Heard counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition has been filed for a mandamus commanding Consolidation Officer, (respondent -1 ) for speedy disposal of objection dated 17.11.2014 Distt. Kaushambi under Section 9 A (2) of UP C.H. Act ( Parwati @ Bela Devi vs. Brahmdev and another) pending before him.
Without entering into the controversy involved in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to Consolidation Officer, (respondent -1 ) to decide objection dated 17.11.2014 Distt. Kaushambi under Section 9 A (2) of UP C.H. Act ( Parwati @ Bela Devi vs. Brahmdev and another), expeditiously."
Learned counsel for the applicant states that one incumbent, namely, Kamlesh Narayan Shukla had filed impleadment application in Case No. TB-130, under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.
C.H. Act (Parwati Devi @ Bela Devi Vs. Brahmdev and another). Even though the said application has been allowed but for the same relief, he has preferred Writ B No. 4684 of 2018 (Kamlesh Narayan Shukla Vs. The Consolidation Officer, 2nd, And Another) before this Hon'ble Court. Vide order dated 6.8.2018, this Court has proceeded to dismiss the said writ petition as totally misconceived with the following observation.
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of mandamus commanding respondent no.1-Consolidation Officer, Chayal-II, Kaushambi to expedite and decide the objection filed under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 in Case No. TB-130 (Parwati Devi @ Bala Devi Vs. Brahm Dev and others) within stipulated period.
The record reveals that the petitioner earlier filed the writ petition with the same ground in which the direction was issued to decide the objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act expeditiously.
Present writ petition for the same relief is not maintainable as no such relief can be granted again.
Writ petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed."
Learned counsel for the applicant, in this backdrop, states that aforementioned proceeding must be finalised well within time.
In the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that no willful contempt is made out against the opposite party. However, as the aforementioned proceeding is pending consideration since long time, it is always open to the applicant to press an appropriate application before the competent Authority for expeditious disposal of the aforementioned proceeding.
With the above, the present contempt application disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 A.K.Srivastava