Court No. - 38
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4364 of 2021 Applicant :- Mohd Rasid Rain And 14 Others Opposite Party :- Gyaneshwar Tiwari, District Magistrate, And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Chandra Mishra
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants.
This application has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 5.7.2019, passed in Writ-C No. 21329 of 2019 (Mohd. Rasid Rain and 14 others Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby the aforesaid petition was disposed of with the following orders:
"Heard Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
The petitioners are wholesale dealers in fruits and vegetables. They are carrying on their business from the Mandi Asthal which has been duly allotted to them. They have now been served with notices specially notice dated 24.2.2019 by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Rath to shift their business to the new Mandi Asthal (the principal market yard developed by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti) which has become operative.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per the notice itself only the boundary wall of the alleged Mandi area has been constructed with no other facilities such as inner road, tin shed etc., and as such it is not possible to shift the business of the petitioners to that place or to carry out the trading activities from there.
It is further submitted that so far not even allotment in the said new Mandi area has been done and in the absence of such allotment of place the petitioners can not shift their business. The District Magistrate who is the Chairman of the Mandi Samiti can consider the above grievance of the petitioners and in case the new Mandi area is not fully operative with all amenities, he may issue appropriate directions restraining the Secretary from compelling the petitioners to shift their business.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to raise their grievance by means of a comprehensive representation before respondent no. 2 within a period of two weeks from today and in case any such grievance or representation is raised or made, respondent no. 2 shall consider it and on verification of the necessary facts pass appropriate orders in accordance with law most expeditiously within a period of one month thereafter and far a period of two months or till the decision of the aforesaid representation whichever is earlier, the respondents shall not force the petitioners to shift their business.
When the matter was listed on 23.10.2021, the following order was passed by this Court:
"Put up as fresh in the week commencing 15.11.2021.
In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the applicants will file supplementary affidavit annexing the paper and documents stating therein how and in what manner the order has been served upon the District Magistrate at the relevant point of time.
Even till today, no supplementary affidavit is on record. When asked to demonstrate when was the representation served on the opposite party no.1, learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out page 74 which reflects that a registered letter was dispatched to the opposite party no.1 on 21.9.2021 which is much beyond time provided by this Court in its order dated 5.7.2019.
As such, no contempt is made out against the opposite party and this application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 sfa/ (Jayant Banerji, J)