Allahabad High Court
SMT. ASHA PANDEYversusDR. LAKSHMI SINGH, THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER (C.M.O.) AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The contempt application was dismissed as infructuous because the respondent had complied with the court's direction.
Summary
The High Court, while disposing of Writ-C No. 18791 of 2024, directed the respondent to decide the applicant's claim for supplies and to issue a reasoned order within a month, with payment to be made within two months. The applicant, Smt. Asha Pandey, filed a contempt application alleging non‑compliance with that direction. The State, through its standing counsel, produced a record showing that a payment of Rs. 8,64,000 (after deducting tax of Rs. 36,000) had been made to the proprietor of M/s Navya Agencies in accordance with the court’s order. The court examined the evidence and found that the direction had been complied with. Consequently, the contempt application was held to be infructuous and was dismissed, with the contempt notice discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent complied with the High Court's direction to decide the claim and make payment within the stipulated time.
- Whether a contempt of court application is maintainable when the direction has been complied with.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- writ petition
- compliance
- civil procedure
- payment of dues
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6130 of 2024
Smt. Asha Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Dr. Lakshmi Singh, The Chief Medical Officer
(C.M.O.) And Another .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pratap Vikram Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pranjal Mehrotra
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. The writ Court on 29.5.2024 while disposing of Writ-C No. 18791 of
2024 had directed the opposite party to decide the claim of applicant and
following order was passed;
"1. Heard Shri Pratap Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra and learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondent.
2. Petitioner claims money for supplies made to respondent no.3 against
invoice annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.
3. Facts are not ascertained. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served
in keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit, at this
stage.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction, subject to
the petitioner filing a copy of this order along with self-attested copy of
this writ petition before respondent no.3, that respondent may proceed to
deal with and decide the petitioner's claim by a reasoned and speaking
order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month
from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner. Any amount found
due and payable may be paid out to the petitioner within a further period
of two months. If any approval is to be granted by respondent no.2 the
same may be obtained within the same time."
CAPL No. 6130 of 2024
2
2. Today instructions have come from the State side which are taken on
record. Learned Standing Counsel informs the Court that payment of Rs.
8,64,000/- has been made to the proprietor of M/s Navya Agencies after
deducing tax of Rs. 36000/-.
3. As payment has been made in pursuance of direction of writ Court,
present contempt application is rendered infructuous and same stands
dismissed as infructuous. Contempt notice stands discharged.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 14, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…