Ram Pratap And 9 Others vs Kriparam And 9 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8326 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2341 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Pratap And 9 Others
 
Opposite Party :- Kriparam And 9 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Singh Tomar
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri Lalit Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicants.

This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed for disobedience of order dated 11.01.1996 passed in Writ Petition No.1471 of 1996.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that this Court on 11.01.1996 had directed the parties to maintain status quo but the opposite party had violated the order of Writ Court.

From perusal of the order I find that this order was operational till 2nd April, 1996. It seems that this order was not extended thereafter, in fact the said writ petition was dismissed on 03.8.1998 on the basis of some compromise arrived between the parties. It appears that an application was filed for restoring the case to its original number and the order dated 03.8.1998 was recalled vide order dated 21.2.2006, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure 6 to the application. The Court had only restored the writ petition while the interim order was not restored as it was time bound order. Moreover the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of compromise arrived between the parties on 03.08.1998.

Learned counsel for the applicant had stated that counter affidavit along with stay vacation application has already been filed in the said writ petition, which is pending consideration.

Recently the Apex Court in case of Vinay Kumar Pandey vs. Committe of Management Shri Gandhi Inter College and another, Civil Appeal Nos. 4007-4008 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 14995-14996 of 2020), decided on 08.12.2020 has held that where the stay vacation application and counter affidavit has already been filed, no contempt proceeding can be initiated subsequently. The operative portion of the judgment is quoted hereasunder:-

"Without going into the issue of maintainability of the appeal before the Division Bench of the High court, the basis facts which emerge from the record are that the contempt alleged is of non-compliance of the order dated 15.07.2019 which itself was an ad-interim order and appropriate application seeking vacation of that order is still pending consideration before the High Court.

In the circumstances, unless and until the submission raised in that application seeking vacation is adequately addressed and rejected, no case for initiation of contempt proceedings was made out."

In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, no contempt is made out. The contempt application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 20.7.2021

Kushal