PRAMILA SINGH v. SRI RAJESH UPADHYAYA CHIEF VATERINARY OFFICER AND ANOTHER
CAPL/4520/2024 · 2025-11-11
Manish Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 188505 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 188505 (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. - 4520 of 2024 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non-compliance of judgement and order dated 30.07.2025. Relevant para-5 of the said order is quoted herein below:-
"This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent nos.2 and 3 to expedite the payment of the petitioner, in case, it is found due and such payment be made within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Authorities concerned."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the direction of this Court passed in the writ petition, the balance amount has not been paid which amounts to willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ court. 3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that an application for discharge of contempt notices and dismissal of contempt proceedings has been filed on 07.04.2025 along with short counter affidavit mentioning therein the payments made and the reasons for non payment of amount as claimed by the applicant in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the said affidavit i.e. the applicant was not able to produce the proof of payment made to the supplier and thereafter the supplier was called in the office of the answering respondent for the purpose of verification of bill voucher produced but the supplier was also unable to produce the proof of payment received by him from the applicant. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that all the bills were produced and the same have been enclosed by the answering respondent as SCA-1 in the short counter affidavit. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges in the present case is that there was no positive Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajey Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Pramila Singh .....Applicant(s) Sri Rajesh Upadhyaya Chief Vaterinary Officer And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
direction for payment as it was the conditional order passed in the writ that 'in case it is found due'.
The respondents has filed short counter affidavit giving reasons for non payment of amount alleged by the applicant and against the said short counter affidavit, till date no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant controverting the averments made in the short counter affidavit. The bills which have been relied by learned counsel for applicant annexed with the short counter affidavit are not those bills for which the payment has not been made. The dispute regarding the determination of amount or claim as alleged by the applicant denied by the respondents cannot be seen in the contempt proceedings. 6. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the order passed in the writ petition has been complied with. The present contempt application is dismissed. November 11, 2025 Renu/- CAPL No. 4520 of 2024 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench