Allahabad High Court
RAISE MIYAN AND ANOTHERversusBHUWANESH KUMAR, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FISHERIES DEPARTMENT AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The pendency of a review application does not bar contempt proceedings; the respondents remain bound by the original writ order.
Summary
The applicant filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents had failed to comply with the order dated 19‑11‑2019 in Writ‑A No. 5917/2018, which arose from a Special Appeal (Civil) No. 28129 of 2018 (State of U.P. v. Kishwar Ali). The respondents argued that a pending review application and the characterization of the earlier judgment as a personal (in personam) decree barred contempt proceedings. The Court held that the mere pendency of a review does not stay contempt action and that the original writ order remains binding until modified or set aside. The Court gave the respondents a deadline to either obtain a favorable order or comply, and later recorded a compliance affidavit indicating that the order had been satisfied. Consequently, the contempt application was consigned to the record, effectively dismissing it.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of a review application stays contempt proceedings for non‑compliance with a writ order.
- Whether a judgment characterized as in personam can be enforced against the respondents in the contempt proceeding.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- review petition
- judgment in personam
- compliance affidavit
- writ petition
- order enforcement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1399 of 2021
Raise Miyan And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Bhuwanesh Kumar, Principal Secretary Fisheries
Department And 2 Others .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Awadh Behari Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Brij Bhushan Paul
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Compliance affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. This Court on 10.08.2026 proceeded to pass the following order.-
"1. On 02.07.2026, the Court proceeded to pass a detailed order which is
quoted hereunder:-
"1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-
compliance of the order dated 19/11/2019 passed in Writ-A No.
5917/2018, whereby following the judgment in Special Appeal (Civil)
No.28129 of 2018 (State of U.P. and others vs. Kishwar Ali) against
which special leave petition also was dismissed. The writ petition
preferred by the writ petitioner was allowed while quashing the order
dated 25/05/2016, making him entitled to leave encashment within a
period 2 months, against which a Special Appeal Defective No. 39/2020
came to be preferred which was disposed of on 21/01/2020 with a liberty
to prefer review application.
2. Review application is stated to be pending, but mere pendency of a
review application cannot be ground to forestall the contempt
proceedings and not to comply with the order in perpetuity.
3. Since it has been stated by Shri Santosh Kumar Shrivastav, Additional
Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing
Counsel that the review application is pending, thus this Court in line
with the judgment in Suresh Chandra Poddar versus Dhani Ram, (2002)
1 SCC 766 is providing a timeline so as to enable the opposite parties to
either obtain a favorable order or to comply with the order.
4. Put up this case on 03.08.2026 in the additional cause list, by which
time the order may be obtained by the opposite party or the order may be
CAPL No. 1399 of 2021
2
complied with.
5. Instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix
A."
2. Today, it has been apprised by Sri Santosh Kumar Shrivastav,
Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned
Standing Counsel that opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not adhering to
the position, which has been reflected in the affidavit of the parties.
3. On the oral request of counsel for the applicant, the applicant is
permitted to implead Shri Mukesh Meshram, Principal Secretary,
Fisheries Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow; Sri N.S. Rehmani,
Director of Fisheries, U.P. at Lucknow; and Ms. Anjana Verma, Deputy
Director of Fisheries, Bareilly Division, District Bareilly as opposite
party nos. 4, 5 and 6 during the course of the day.
4. On a pointed query being raised to counsel for the respondents as to
what is the status of the review application, learned counsel for the
opposite party submits that the review application is still pending. It is
also contended that the order passed in Review No. 33680 of 2016,
Kishwar Ali vs State of U.P., which has been relied upon in order to grant
relief to the applicant in Special Appeal Defective No. 396 of 2018, State
of U.P. vs Kishor Ali, has been held to be a judgment in personam and
not a judgment in rem.
5. Be that as it may be, since the order of the writ Court is still in
existence without any modification/clarification, the opposite parties are
bound by it.
6. Additionally, it has been argued that steps are being taken for getting
the review decided, but on account of one pretext or the other, the matter
is not being taken up.
7. Put up this case on 08.09.2026 under the same caption."
3. Today, compliance affidavit has been filed, according to which, the order
of the writ court stands complied with which has been endorsed by the
counsel for the applicants.
4. In view of the above, the present contempt application is consigned to
record.
September 8, 2026
Rajesh
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…