Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 203615 (ALL)

VIJAY SHANKER TRIPATHI v. MR. SUDHEER KUMAR, DIRECTOR, FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, LKO.

/856/2024 · 2025-10-13

Manish Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 856 of 2024 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. 1. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non- compliance of order dated 23.02.2023, the judgment extract is quoted hereinbelow:- "In case such a representation is moved by petitioner, respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him." 2. Learned State Counsel has submitted that a compliance affidavit has been filed on 02.05.2024 enclosing therein the decision dated 17.04.2023 passed in compliance of the order passed by the Writ Court. The decision has been taken and PPO has been issued and the amount has been credited in the account of the applicant. 3. It further submitted that no objection has been filed against the compliance affidavit till date. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for applicant is disputing the determination of amount paid to the applicant and has submitted that the respondent has disobeyed the orders passed by the Writ Court and is liable to be punished under the courts of Contempt Act, 1971. 5. After hearing, the learned counsel for parties going through the record of the case, it is found that the Writ Court has only directed for deciding the representation of the applicant. The respondent has passed an order by issuing the PPO and in pursuance thereof, the payment has been made and if there is any dispute regarding the determination of amount that cannot be seen in the contempt proceedings. The judgment and order passed by the Writ Court has been complied with. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Tripathi, Anurag Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vijay Shanker Tripathi .....Applicant(s) Mr. Sudheer Kumar, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. In view of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt application has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 7. Notice issued earlier, if any, stands discharged. October 13, 2025 Satish CAPL No. 856 of 2024 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench