M/S A.K. CONSTRUCTION THRU. PROPRIETOR ASHOK KUMAR SINGH v. SRI SANJAY KUMAR JAIWAR, EXECUTIVE OFFICER AMBEDKAR NAGAR AND ANOTHER
CAPL/2137/2025 · 2025-11-06
Manish Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 180622 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 180622 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2137 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. Respondent no. 1 has filed a compliance affidavit, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order passed in the Writ Petition has not been complied with. The respondents are taking a different stand as earlier the Executive Officer has issued a letter dated 05.02.2025 showing therein that some amount is due to be paid to the applicant for which the approval was to be made by the Chairman. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the said recommendation by the respondent no. 2, part payment of Rs. 1 lakh and odd has already been paid to the applicant and now by filing the present compliance affidavit, they have come with a case that the work done by the applicant was not satisfactory and he is not entitled for any payment, hence, there is a willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the Writ Court after appreciating the
submissions advanced on behalf of respective parties, the judgment and
order dated 09.04.2025 has been passed. The relevant excerpts of the said
judgment and order is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"4. Mr. Raj Priya Srivastava, learned counsel for the Nagar Panchayat Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Mohd. Munis Jafari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Raj Priya Srivastava M/S A.K. Construction Thru. Proprietor Ashok Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) Sri Sanjay Kumar Jaiwar, Executive Officer Ambedkar Nagar And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
says that on the application of petitioner an inquiry was instituted and some amount which was to the tune of Rs. one lakh and odd has been paid to petitioner for the year 2022-23. The said inquiry is still on and if anything is payable to the petitioner, the same would be paid at the earliest, say, within two months. " From perusal of the order passed in the Writ Petition, it is found that it has been observed by the Writ Court that Rs. 1 lakh and odd has already been paid to the applicant and thereafter the Writ Court has passed an order that the said inquiry is still on and if anything is payable to the petitioner, the same would be paid at the earliest meaning thereby there was no direction for making any payment to the applicant as per the letter dated 05.02.2025 issued by the respondent no. 2 which has been heavily relied by the learned counsel for the applicant. The Writ Court has not issued any positive direction for making any payment whereas it is left open for the respondent that if any amount is payable to the petitioner, the same would be paid at the earliest. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the present case is devoid of merits, hence, dismissed. November 6, 2025 Ashish CAPL No. 2137 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench