Ram Laut vs Dr. Ramesh Kumar Shukla S.D.M./Up ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 3017 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 1955 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Laut
 
Opposite Party :- Dr. Ramesh Kumar Shukla S.D.M./Up Ziladhikari And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivekanand Misra
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Heard.

The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the judgment and order of writ Court dated 13.10.2017 in P.I.L. (Civil) No.24813 of 2017 In re: Ram Laut vs. State of U.P. and others. By the said order, this Court had directed the respondents No.2 and 3 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 18.9.2017 expeditiously. The said representation pertained to some encroachment having been made on the land recorded as chak marg in the village in question.

Upon filing of present contempt petition, this Court on 7.8.2018 had passed the following order:-

"Let a copy of contempt petition be handed over to learned Additional Chief Standing counsel who shall seek instructions as to why the competent authority has not ensured the compliance of order passed in W.P.No.24813 (P.I.L Civil) of 2017 on 13.10.2017.

List/put up as fresh on 03.10.2018, by the date fixed, if the order passed by this Court is not complied with, necessary orders shall be passed on the contempt petition."

Today, Sri Mayankar Singh, learned Standing Counsel has informed that representation of the petitioner has already been decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lambhua, District Sultanpur vide order dated 26.10.2017.

However, on the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of the said order dated 26.10.2017 has never been made available to the petitioner. He further submits that if the petitioner had been served with the order dated 26.10.2017, he would not have filed the present petition alleging non compliance of the order.

Sri Mayankar Singh, learned Standing Counsel contends that order dated 26.10.2017 itself required the Tahsildar, Lambhua, District Sultanpur to communicate a copy of the said order to the petitioner.

Thus on the basis of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties it appears that the copy of the aforesaid order dated 26.10.2017 has never been communicated to the petitioner whereby giving rise to this avoidable litigation.

Accordingly, issued notice to respondents No.1 and 2 to appear in person on 22.10.2018 and file their personal affidavit as to why despite the specific order of this Court dated 13.10.2017 and the representation of the petitioner having been decided on 26.10.2017, copy of the said order was not communicated to the petitioner.

Order Date :- 3.10.2018

Rakesh

(Abdul Moin, J.)