Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar vs Dr Hariom, Principal Secretary,Social ... on 13 May, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85206
Court No. - 51
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3343 of 2024
Applicant :- Ajay Kumar
Opposite Party :- Dr Hariom, Principal Secretary,Social Welfare Department
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Shashi Bhushan Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The writ Court, on 05.07.2023, in Writ-C No.21204 of 2023 had passed the following order:-
"Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no.6 today in the Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by respondent no.2; Divisional Appellate Forum/Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj as well as order dated 11.01.2022 passed by Respondent no.4; District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Fatehpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the reserve seat under the "OBC" category, the petitioner contested the election of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gaura, Block Hathgaon, Tehsil-Khaga, District-Fatehpur and won the election. The respondent no.6; Ajay Kumar after being unsuccessful in the election filed an application before the competent authority questioning the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner stating therein that he does not belong to the aforesaid category. The competent authorities have decided the said application against the petitioner wherein they have held that the petitioner does not belong to the "OBC" category.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that name of the petitioner's father has been recorded in the revenue record as a person belonging to the backward community of Sub Caste "Momin (Ansar)", which has been considered as per the relevant Government Order as "OBC" category. However, in the orders impugned, the title of "Sheikh" has been looked into as the community to which the petitioner belongs. He further submits that "Sheikh" is the title used by the petitioner, not his caste, whereas the petitioner belongs to category of Sub Caste "Momein (Ansar)".
On the basis of instructions as has been served upon the respondent no.6, who is complainant in the present case, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that against the impugned orders, there is an alternative remedy of filing appeal available to the petitioner before the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
In view of the aforesaid, no useful purpose will be served to keep this writ petition pending and calling for a counter affidavit.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order and, if any such appeal is filed, the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said appeal.
It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the authority concerned shall apply its own mind strictly in accordance with law."
From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the writ petition was disposed of by the writ Court directing the applicant to move an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. At the time of filing of the writ petition, no such appeal was preferred by the applicant.
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines the civil contempt, which is as under:-
"(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;"
From the reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that where there is a wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or undertaking, then a case for civil contempt is made out.
In the instant case, there is no such order, direction or undertaking. At the time of disposal of the writ petition, the appeal itself was not preferred. The Court had only left it open to the applicant to prefer an appeal and in case such appeal was filed, the same was to be decided within two months, in accordance with law.
This Court finds that there is no wilful disobedience by the authorities of the order dated 05.07.2023.
No case for contempt is made out.
Contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
SK Goswami
