# Akhilesh Kumar Naik (Nayak) v. Sh. K.G. Ramchandran, Chairman & Managing Director and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 483
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 4005 of 1999
- **Bench:** B.K. Rathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhilesh-kumar-naik-nayak-v-sh-k-g-ramchandran-chairman-managing-director-and-40128
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act 1972-will full
disobedience- Removal from ServiceOrder Stayed by High Court-opposite
parties complied with order- But again
removed
from
service
on
fresh
misconduct- Contempt Petition filed.

Held- Once order passed by High Court in
favour of petitioner for continuing in
service does not mean that he can not
remove
from
service
on
fresh
misconduct-
No
ground
to
proceed
Contempt Petition.

Held- Para 8

Order of the court in favour of petitioner
for continuing him in service when he
was removed earlier, he can not be
removed on fresh misconduct. Therefore,
there is no question of proceeding in
contempt. The question whether the
misconduct has been committed by the
petitioner or not can not be decided in
this
contempt
proceedings.
The
petitioner may file fresh writ petition
challenging the removal on the ground of
alleged fresh misconduct.

## Text

2 All] Akhilesh Kumar Naik V. Sh. K.G. Ramchandran, Chairman & M.D. and others
483
Learned counsel for the petitioner does
not ask for time for filing any amendment
application
or
for
impleading
the
necessary parties. The F.I.R. seems to
have been lodged at Police Station Adarsh
Mandi, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar.
But in the prayer clause, reference is
made to the case related to the Police
Station Adarsh Mandi Muzaffarnagar.
Affidavit has been filed in support of the
writ petition originally, of the pairokar,
without disclosing his relation with the
petitioner. A supplementary affidavit was
filed today in the Court explaining the
relation and also for furnishing many
other
informations.
However,
no
reference is given in the said affidavit that
case related to the Police Station Adarsh
Mandi Shamli, and not Muzaffarnagar.
The practice of filing the writ petition in
such a casual manner is not worth
approval as it amounts to dis-service to
the Court and community as a whole.

16. In view of the above, we do not
find the petition as maintainable. It is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
However,
dismissal of the writ petition shall not
prejudice the cause of the petitioner to file
a properly maintainable writ petition
before this Court.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B.K. RATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 4005 of
1999

Akhilesh Kumar Naik (Nayak) ...Petitioner
Versus
Sh. K.G. Ramchandran, Chairman &
Managing Director and others
 ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.M. Asthana

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sandeep Saxena

Contempt of Courts Act 1972-will full
disobedience- Removal from ServiceOrder Stayed by High Court-opposite
parties complied with order- But again
removed
from
service
on
fresh
misconduct- Contempt Petition filed.

Held- Once order passed by High Court in
favour of petitioner for continuing in
service does not mean that he can not
remove
from
service
on
fresh
misconduct-
No
ground
to
proceed
Contempt Petition.

Held- Para 8

Order of the court in favour of petitioner
for continuing him in service when he
was removed earlier, he can not be
removed on fresh misconduct. Therefore,
there is no question of proceeding in
contempt. The question whether the
misconduct has been committed by the
petitioner or not can not be decided in
this
contempt
proceedings.
The
petitioner may file fresh writ petition
challenging the removal on the ground of
alleged fresh misconduct.

(Delivered by Hon'ble B.K. Rathi, J.)

1. Request has been made to punish
the opposite parties for disobedience of
the order dated 30.09.1997 passed by this
court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.32916 of 1997.

2. I have heard Sri K.M. Asthana,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the
opposite parties.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
484

3. The petitioner was worker in the
factory. He alongwith four other persons
filed the above writ petition, in which the
direction was given that if the petitioners
are still working with the opposite parties,
they are directed to continue on the posts
occupied by them till further orders.

4. It has been argued by Sri K.M.
Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner
that this order has not been complied with
and the services of the petitioner have
been discontinued from 16.10.1999. As
against this, the contention of Sri Sandeep
Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite
parties is that the order of this Court was
immediately complied with and the
petitioner as well as four other petitioners
were taken into service immediately after
the order dated 30.09.1997. That the
petitioner was later on discontinued for
gross misconduct.

5. It is contended that the petitioner
misbehaved
with
the
contractor on
05.07.1998 and threatened to kill him.
Therefore, show cause notice was issued
to the petitioner, which is annexure no.
CA-2. An F.I.R. was also lodged on
25.11.1998, which is annexure no.CA-3.
That the petitioner also participated in the
mass movement of contract labour in the
plant
premises
on
23.11.1998
and
24.11.1998. The report regarding which is
annexure no. CA-4. That misconduct and
indiscipline
of
the
petitioner
was
increasing day by day and smooth
functioning of the administration became
impossible because of the conduct of the
petitioner. The complaint regarding it was
also made on 07.10.1999. The copy of
which is annexure no.CA-6. That the
petitioner also hampered the production
of the factory for these reasons he was
discontinued.

6. The petitioner has filed rejoinder
affidavit denying all these allegations and
it is contended that all these allegations
are false and has been concocted in order
to defeat the order of this court. That the
F.I.R. was investigated and it was found
to be false as is clear from annexure no.
RA-2. The final report was submitted.
That annexure no.RA-3 show that no case
has been registered against the petitioner.
Annexure no. RA-4 further shows that
even as many as twenty two workers have
given in writing that the petitioner is
sincere worker and is pressing the other
labourers to work. It has been contended
that the petitioner being Secretary of the
union he is being harassed.

7. I have considered the arguments.
It has also been argued by Sri Sandeep
Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite
parties that there were five petitioners in
the writ petition and all of them were
taken on service immediately after the
order of this court. That four are still
continuing in service and it was the
petitioner alone who has been removed.
That there is no malafide against him and
the opposite parties has not shown any
disobedience of the order of this court.

8. After considering the arguments
of the learned counsel for the parties I
find that the impugned order of this court
dated 30.09.1997 was complied with by
the opposite parties and the petitioner was
taken into service. The petitioner was
removed again in October, 1998 on the
ground of fresh misconduct. It can not be
accepted that once there is order of the
court
in
favour
of
petitioner
for
continuing him in service when he was
removed earlier, he can not be removed
on fresh misconduct. Therefore, there is
no question of proceeding in contempt.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] M/s Harihar Contractors V. State of U.P. and others
485
The question whether the misconduct has
been committed by the petitioner or not
can not be decided in this contempt
proceedings. The petitioner may file fresh
writ petition challenging the removal on
the ground of alleged fresh misconduct.

9. I do not find any ground to
proceed against the opposite parties for
contempt. The petition for contempt is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD MAY 23, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN CHATTERJEE, CJ
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12599 of 2003

M/s Harihar Contractors
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Madhur Prasad
Sri Yogeshwar Prasad
Sri V.C. Misra
Sri Hari Om Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.S. Singh
Sri Rajiv Dhawan
Sri Prashant Kumar
Sri Akhilesh Kalre
Sri Somesh Khare
S.C.

Auction proceeding- highest bidder not
reached
the
fixed
reserved
Price-
recommendation not accepted by the
authorities-highest
bid
can
not
be
accepted- direction for re auction held
proper.

Para- 15
In such circumstances we can not let the
State exchequer be put to such a huge
loss by permitting the auction to become
final,
which
was
apparently
done
surreptitiously. In our view, if the
reserve price fixed by the respondents
was not being reached at the auction
dated 19.2.2003, and re-auction had
already been held on 27.2.2003 and
28.2.2003,
and
there
was
no
recommendation for acceptance of the
highest bid made at the auction held on
19.2.2003, which in any case had not
become final because of the order of reauction, such bid should not have been
accepted. In such a situation, the only
option left for the State-respondents was
to re-advertise the area for re-auction
after determining afresh the reserve
price for the area.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

The moot question in this writ
petition is whether it is the sanctity of the
auction proceeding which is to be
preserved or the revenue of the State
which is to be of prime consideration.

1. In an auction held on 19.2.2003
for the grant of mining rights of minor
minerals
of
Tehsil
Sarila,
District
Hamirpur, the respondent no.4, M/s
Chaudhary Associates Co. was the highest
bidder. Their bid of Rs. 1.51 Crores was
forwarded by the District Magistrate to
the State Government for its approval.
After the State Government accorded its
approval, the lease deed for the said area
was
executed
in
their
favour
on
15.3.2003. By means of this writ petition
the petitioner M/s Harihar Contractors
have challenged the grant of the lease in
favour of respondent no.4, and have also
prayed that the offer of the petitioner of
2% above the reserved price (fixed by the
State at Rs. 2,21,19,485/-) be accepted,
and the lease for a period of three years
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in