Court No. - 28 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1546 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shameem Akhtar Respondent :- Shri Alok Ranjan, Principal Secretary And Urban And Another Petitioner Counsel :- R.V. Mishra Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the designation of
opposite party no. 1.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
This contempt application has been filed by the applicant Shameed Akhtar
alleging disobedience by the opposite parties of the judgment dated
07.09.2005 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 36769 of
2005 by which this Court while dismissing the applicant’s writ petition filed
for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents in the writ petition
to allot land on the roadside patri near Anand Bhawan and the Allahabad
university to the petitioner. Upon perusing the judgment of this court dated
07.09.2005, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure no. 5 to the affidavit
accompanying the contempt application, I find that this court had issued
following directions:-
“In such circumstances we also consider it proper to restrain the
respondent from allowing the roadside patri land to any person whether
it be at the Hasimpur Road or any of the Road within the Municipal
limits of the city. In another Public Interest Ltigation matter we have
informed that the Master Plan is being revised. The Nagar Nigam,
Allahabad is directed to submit proposals, as are required under law,
and invite suggestions/objections from the public at large with regard to
the widening of the roads and other things.
The Nagar Nigam is also directed to remove such other encroachment
made on the roadside patri land.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in gross violation of the
directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 07.09.2005, the opposite
party no. 1 and 2 instead of removing the encroachment existing on the
Hasimpur Road and other roads, have started realizing rent from the persons
carrying on business on the road side patri. Specific averments in this regard
has been made in paragraph 18 of the affidavit accompanying the contempt
application.
In view of the above I am of the view that the opposite parties are prima facie
guilty of having committed contempt of this court’s judgment and order dated
07.09.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36769 of 2005.
Issue notice to the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to show cause in person as to
why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of this
Court’s judgement and order dated 07.09.2005 passed in Civil Misc.Writ
Petition No.36769 of 2005 (Shameem Akhtar Vs. State of U.P. and others).
List this case on 10.05.2010.
If in the meantime, the opposite parties comply with the order of this Court
they need not appear in person and may show cause by filing counter
affidavit.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010
YK