Allahabad High Court
Pramod Mittal vs Kamal Singh on 21 August, 2018
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4260 of 2018
Applicant :- Pramod Mittal
Opposite Party :- Kamal Singh
Counsel for Applicant :- Uday Gopal
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The present contempt application has been filed for punishing the Opposite Party for willful disobedient of the judgment and order dated 9.8.2017 passed by this Court in Application under Section 482 No.18161 of 2008 (Aamod Mittal and another vs. State of U.P. And another), where this Court has observed as under:-
"The reasons given for enlargement of time are accepted. The time granted in the order dated 14.2.2017 for submitting discharge application before the court concerned, is extended for a further period of ten days from today.
The application stands disposed of."
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the aforesaid order was passed on 9.8.2017 whereby the time for submitting the discharge application before the court concerned was extended for a further period of ten days from that date, but the order was passed by the Court below on that date itself, i.e., 9.8.2017.
In paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application, it has been stated that the aforesaid order dated 9.8.2017 was communicated to the court below on the same date but still the court below has failed to proceed to pass the order on 9.8.2017 and, therefore, has committed willful disobedience of the order of this Court.
In my opinion, this petition is absolutely misconceived. In case there was a willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 9.8.2017, the applicant was sleeping for about a period of one year and did not come forward to claim this. Apart from that, from perusal of page 24 and 24-A indicate that a certified copy of the order was apparent supplied on 11.8.2008.
A perusal of the photocopy of the order at page 24-B clearly shows that certified copy of the order was prepared on 11.8.2017 and as such there is no occasion for communicating the order for filing the same before the Court as the order was passed by the court below on 9.8.2017 itself.
It is not understandable as to how a contempt or order of this Court by the Presiding Officer has been made out whereas only the time for submitting discharge application that may be filed before the court below was extended by a further period of ten days by order dated 9.8.2017. It is also noticeable that the time for filing discharge application was granted to the applicant on 14.2.2017 and this time period was not utilised by the applicant herein for about six months and now it is being claimed that the order dated 9.8.2017 has been violated by the Presiding order. The present contempt application is an attempt to malign the judicial officer.
The contempt application is absolutely misconceived and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018
AKJ
