Allahabad High Court
Chandra Bhan Pandey And Another vs Sri Ashish Garg, D.J. on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195291
Court No. - 9
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5952 of 2023
Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Pandey And Another
Opposite Party :- Sri Ashish Garg, D.J.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Krishna Mishra,Ajay Mishra
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. The writ Court on 04.01.2023 while disposing off the Matters Under Article 227 No. 11793 of 2022 passed the following order;
"Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners.
By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a direction has been sought to the District Judge, Mathura to decide the complaint/representations filed by the petitioners against the appointment of the receiver in respect of temple in question pursuant to a compromise judgment and decree dated 15.10.1924.
It is submitted that though the receiver was appointment pursuant to the decree with certain conditions imposed upon him but the receiver has failed to comply with those conditions inasmuch as the term of the receiver having expired on 31.3.2020, the District Judge was under obligation of decree to appoint a new receiver. Certain objections have also been raised regarding continuance of receiver on the ground that in the order passed by this Court earlier in First Appeal from Order 3664 of 2010 decided on 16.12.2010, receiver namely the respondent was held to be not eligible person to be appointed as receiver. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this person who is continuing as a receiver is a suspended teacher of Basic Shiksha Parishad and the order of suspension has also been brought on record as Annexure-3 to this petition.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that no receiver has been appointed after expiry of the term of presently continuing receiver, namely, the respondent impleaded in this petition, this petition stands disposed of with the direction of District Judge concerned to take appropriate decision in the matter of the complaint/representations of the petitioners filed on 04.09.2020 and 20.12.2021, by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order."
2. From perusal of the order of writ Court it transpires that a direction was issued to the District Judge to decide the matter in regard to the appointment of receiver.
3. Instructions were sought from the opposite party.
4. Today Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of Allahabad High Court and he has placed the instructions before the Court. According to the said instructions another set of persons had filed a petition being Matter Under Article 227 No. 2634 of 2020 before this Court and this Court on 07.09.2020 passed the following order;
"Sri Dharampal Singh (Senior Advocate), assisted by Sri Siddharth Niranjan and Sri R.S. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF by registered post A.D. within 7 days returnable within four weeks.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that District Judge, Mathura has misinterpreted the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.9.2019 in F.A.F.O. No.1463 of 2019 and has transferred the case from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Mathura, to the Court of Civil Judge, Mathura.
Clear and simple reading of the order dated 23.9.2019 reveals that it empowers the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Mathura, as direction was issued to Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Mathura, to decide all the applications filed by the present appellant herein till date, and the opponent was expected to co-operate in getting the said applications disposed of.
Therefore, when the direction of the High Court was issued to Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Mathura, then apparently, District Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter even in the supervisory or administrative capacity.
In view of such facts, order passed by the District Judge on 4.8.2020 (Annexure-8) is stayed.
It is made clear that the Additional District Judge, Court No.5 shall proceed with the matter and stay is only in regard to transfer of cases from Court No.5, Additional District Judge, Mathura to the Court of Civil Judge.
Thus, stay will not in any manner hamper or construe to be staying the proceedings before the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Mathura, who shall proceed in terms of the orders passed in F.A.F.O. No.1463 of 2019."
5. From perusal of the order aforesaid, it is clear that this Court had directed the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Mathura to decide the matter in regard to appointment of receiver. The Court had further held that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter even in the supervisory or in administrative capacity.
6. Sri Dharampal Singh, learned Senior Counsel, has appeared on behalf of intervener and states that several directions have been issued by this Court wherein Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Mathura has been directed to decide the application of the receiver.
7. Further, Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel, has invited the attention of the Court to the correction application No. 2 of 2023 which has been moved by one of the petitioner of Matter Under Article 227 No. 11793 of 2022 wherein notices have been issued to all the other petitioners. According to the counsel the prayer made in the writ petition was only for the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Mathura to deicde the application but in the order the name of District Judge, Mathura has been shown.
8. From perusal of the various orders passed by this Court, this Court finds that the direction was for the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Mathura to decide the dispute as regard to the appointment of receiver is concerned and not by the District Judge, Mathura.
9. As one of the petitioner of Matter Under Article 227 No. 11793 of 2022 himself has moved the correction application and same is still pending before the Court, no case for contempt is made out.
10. Contempt application is misconceived and same is dismissed, accordingly.
11. Contempt notice stands discharged.
12. File consign to record.
Order Date :- 10.10.2023
Shekhar
