Allahabad High Court
MANDAKINI DEVIversusRAJESH KUMAR VERMA, SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The court found a prima facie case of contempt but disposed of the application, granting the opposite party three months to comply with the original order.
Summary
Mandakini Devi filed a contempt application against Sub Divisional Magistrate Rajesh Kumar Verma for allegedly refusing to comply with the High Court's judgment and order dated 29‑04‑2026 in her writ petition (Writ Petition No. 16087 of 2026). The applicant claimed that despite being served a copy of the order, the opposite party had not acted on it. The court observed that a prima facie case of willful disobedience existed but, instead of issuing a notice, it granted the opposite party an additional three months to comply, subject to procedural steps involving stamped envelopes. The court directed the applicant to provide the necessary envelopes and stipulated that the opposite party must inform the applicant of compliance within a week thereafter. If the order remains unfulfilled, the applicant may approach the court again. The contempt application was therefore disposed of at this stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate's failure to comply with the High Court's order constitutes contempt of court.
- Whether a notice is required before proceeding with contempt proceedings.
- What appropriate relief or direction the court should grant in a contempt application where compliance is pending.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- willful disobedience
- writ petition
- compliance order
- procedural directions
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6745 of 2026
Mandakini Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Verma, Sub Divisional Magistrate
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Balbir Singh, Om Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The present contempt application has been filed for punishing the
Opposite Party for willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated
29.04.2026, passed by this Hon'ble Court, in Writ Petition No. 16087 of
2026 (Mandakini Devi vs. State of U.P. & another).
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant
had filed the aforesaid writ petition, which was disposed of vide order
dated 29.04.2026. Copy of the order was served but till date the order of
writ Court has not been complied with.
4. Prima facie, a case has been made out for punishing the opposite party
for willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed in the aforesaid
writ petition.
5. However, no notice is issued to the opposite party at this stage. The
opposite party is granted three months further time to comply with the
order dated 29.04.2026, passed by this Hon'ble Court, in Writ Petition No.
16087 of 2026 (Mandakini Devi vs. State of U.P. & another) from the
date of production of a certified copy of this order.
6. The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope
addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed envelope to
the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of
this order along with the self-addressed envelope of the applicant with a
CAPL No. 6745 of 2026
2
copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week
thereafter and keep a record thereof.
7. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court
and intimate the applicant the order through the self-addressed envelop
within a week thereafter.
8. In case, the opposite party does not comply with the order, it would be
open to the applicant to approach this court again.
9. With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of
at this stage.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 24, 2026
Ashu
Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…