Markandey Yadav vs Awadh Naresh Sharma Director Of ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 46 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Markandey Yadav vs Awadh Naresh Sharma Director Of ... on 2 January, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:387
 
Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2413 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Markandey Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- Awadh Naresh Sharma Director Of Education Madhyamik
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaiya Lal Yadav,Markanday Yadav,Sanjay Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

Heard Sri Bhaiya Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.

The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-compliance of the order dated 08.05.2014 passed in Writ C No. 14242 of 2013. According to the learned counsel for the applicant as per the operative position of the order dated 08.05.2014 the applicant was permitted to furnish additional document or representation which it may deem fit before the Director of Education (Madhyamic) within a period of three weeks from today (08.05.2014) along with the certified copy of the order and thereafter the Director of Education (Madhyamic) shall forward a clear report to the State Government within a period of one month and on the receipt of the report, the Director of Education (Madhyamic), the State Government shall take final decision in the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of next three months. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, the applicant herein preferred Contempt Application (C) No. 2797 of 2015 which came to be disposed of on 11.05.2015 requiring the applicant herein to supply a duly stamp registered envelop addressed to the opposite party and another self addressed stamp envelop to the office within two weeks and the opposite party was directed to decide the claim within two months.

Since according to the applicant the order was not being complied with, he preferred the present contempt petition which is the second contempt petition in which in the year 2016, however, notices have not been issued to the opposite party. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the contempt petition had been preferred within the time specified under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 then mere non-issuance of notice would not be fatal.

Having heard the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, I find myself unable to subscribe to the same particularly when Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 itself contains a rider that no Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt either on or in his own motion or otherwise after expiry of one year from the date when the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the present case, notices have not yet been issued, thus, the judgment in the case of Pallav Seth Vs. Custodian 2001 (7) SCC 549 will come in the way and accordingly, the present case does not warrant any issuance of notice.

Accordingly, the present contempt petition is consigned to record.

Order Date :- 2.1.2024

Rajesh