# Medi Lal v. Achala Khanna

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 586
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008
- **Case number:** Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 1992
- **Bench:** Sanjay Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/medi-lal-v-achala-khanna-41279
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act 1972-section-12willful disobedience-direction issued by
writ Court to decide representationcomplied with after two months beyond
the time allowed by writ Court-cannot be
termed
as
willful
disobediencecontempt-held-not maintainable.

Held: Para 8 & 11

Insofar as the delay in deciding the
representation
of
the
petitioner
is
concerned, it is settled law that even
after
issue
of
notice
in
contempt
proceedings,
if
the
opposite
party
complies with the directions to decide
the representation of the petitioner, the
courts would not insist that the delay
was willful and deliberate defiance of the
order of the High Court.

In the present case, it is not denied that
the order dated 03.07.2007 has been
passed by the opposite party deciding
the representation of the petitioner and
therefore,
although
notices
in
this
contempt
petition
were
issued
on
09.05.2007, the decision has been taken
by the opposite party in compliance of
the order dated 10.07.2006 passed by
this court in the writ petition. As such,
this court is not inclined to accept the
contention of learned counsel for the
applicant that mere delay in deciding the
representation of the petitioner would be
a deliberate and willful disobedience of
the directions issued by this court in the
writ petition.
Case Law discussed:
(2000) 10 SCC 285,
(1996) 6 SCC 291,
(2007) 1 SCC 477.

## Text

586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
distinctive of the goods of the registered
proprietor.

17. Thus in the present case there is
nothing on record to show that section 32
of the Act does not apply on the facts of
the present case. On the contrary it was
conceded by AGA that section 32 has got
full applicability on the facts of the
present case.

18.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist further relied upon a Judgement
rendered by this court in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 25640 of 1994 Mangalore
Ganesh Beedi Works versus District Judge,
Meerut
and
others.
In
this
case
complainant Gokulesh Pathak was the
respondent no. 3. After a detailed
discussion and after going through various
rulings, this court allowed the writ petition
filed by the revisionist and had quashed the
order dated 28.7.1994 passed by District
Judge Meerut, by which order, First
Appeal filed by the plaintiff Gokulelsh
Pathak being FAFO No. 304 of 1993 was
allowed by IV Additional District Judge,
Meerut. The aforesaid court had allowed
the interim injunction application of
plaintiff Gokulesh Pathak (complainant)
and had injected the present revisionists,
which were the respondents in the
aforesaid writ from publishing picture of
Lord Ganesh on the rapper of their Beedi.
The aforesaid judgment rendered by this
court in the aforesaid writ petition
completely demolishes the prosecution
case and therefore it cannot be said that
any offence has been committed by the
revisionists and resultantly, the complaint
filed by the respondents does not make out
any offence against the revisionist.

19. Learned counsel for the
revisionist further relied upon ILR (Vol.
XXIV) page 499 Behari Lal and others V
s. Ghisa Lal and others where in Hon'ble
Justice Blair has held that cutting of a
branch of a Peepal tree does not hurt the
religious susceptibility of Hindus.

20. From the discussions made
above I am of the opinion that the
revisionist was manufacturing Beedi with
the trademark duly registered having
picture of Lord Ganesh on its rapper and
hence it cannot be said that they have
committed any offence. They have got
many judgments in their favour, which
have been referred to above and once they
are acting in accordance with law they
cannot be anointed with any offence.

21. In view of what I have said
above, this revision is allowed. The
impugned
summoning
order
dated
16.6.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate I,
Meerut, in Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 92
is hereby set aside and the proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 1992
Gokalesh Pathak versus Manager and
Director Mangalore Beedi works U/S 298
IPC,
pending
before
the
Judicial
Magistrate, I, Meerut are hereby quashed.

22. This revision is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1839 of
2007

Medi Lal

...Applicant
Versus.
Achala Khanna

...Respondent
2 All] Medi Lal V. Achala Khanna
587
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri. Yogendra Pati Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri. M.C. Chaturvedi.
S.C.

Contempt of Court Act 1972-section-12willful disobedience-direction issued by
writ Court to decide representationcomplied with after two months beyond
the time allowed by writ Court-cannot be
termed
as
willful
disobediencecontempt-held-not maintainable.

Held: Para 8 & 11

Insofar as the delay in deciding the
representation
of
the
petitioner
is
concerned, it is settled law that even
after
issue
of
notice
in
contempt
proceedings,
if
the
opposite
party
complies with the directions to decide
the representation of the petitioner, the
courts would not insist that the delay
was willful and deliberate defiance of the
order of the High Court.

In the present case, it is not denied that
the order dated 03.07.2007 has been
passed by the opposite party deciding
the representation of the petitioner and
therefore,
although
notices
in
this
contempt
petition
were
issued
on
09.05.2007, the decision has been taken
by the opposite party in compliance of
the order dated 10.07.2006 passed by
this court in the writ petition. As such,
this court is not inclined to accept the
contention of learned counsel for the
applicant that mere delay in deciding the
representation of the petitioner would be
a deliberate and willful disobedience of
the directions issued by this court in the
writ petition.
Case Law discussed:
(2000) 10 SCC 285,
(1996) 6 SCC 291,
(2007) 1 SCC 477.

(Delivered by Hon'ble. Sanjay Misra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Yogendra Pati Tripathi
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by
learned counsel for the petitioner. Let the
same be taken on record.

2. This contempt petition has been
filed against the opposite party alleging
deliberate disobedience of the judgement
and order dated 10.07.2006 passed by this
court in WP No. 35134 of 2006. Notices
were issued to the opposite parties on
09.05.2007.

3. A perusal of the order dated
10.07.2006 indicates that this court
considered the contention of the petitioner
that he is entitled to be sent for Special
BTC Training Course and he had made a
representation
which
is
pending
consideration
before
the
authority
concerned. This court disposed of the writ
petition with a direction to the authority
concerned to consider and decide the
aforementioned representation of the
petitioner by a reasoned and speaking
order within two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of the said
order. According to the averments made
in paragraph 7 and 8 of the affidavit
supporting this contempt petition, it
appears that the order of this court was
served on the opposite party through
various representations made by the
applicant. However, when the opposite
party did not pass any order on the
representation of the applicant, this
contempt petition has been filed.

4. An affidavit of compliance has
been filed on behalf of Miss. Achala
Khanna, Director - Basic Education, U.P.
Lucknow to state that by an order dated
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
03.07.2007
(Annexure
CA-1),
the
representation of the applicant has been
finally decided. It has been stated in the
affidavit that there has been some delay in
deciding the matter. However, the same is
not willful or deliberate on the part of the
opposite party.

5. A rejoinder affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the applicant wherein in
paragraph 5 it has been stated that the
representation of the petitioner was not
decided by the opposite party and hence
he was compelled to file the present
contempt petition and the decision now
taken is beyond the time granted by this
court and also on merits the same is
illegal, incorrect and wrong. In paragraph
7 it has been stated that the petitioner has
completed his B.Ed Degree as a regular
candidate and passed B.Ed examination in
1st Division in 1994. The cut off marks
was
286.58%
but
intentionally
the
opposite party has not sent the applicant
for
Special
BTC
Training
Course
although he was selected for the course in
the year 2005 as an OBC candidate and
the name of the petitioner was placed at
Sl. No. 9 of the select list published on
22.09.2005. It is therefore, stated that
even the order dated 03.07.2007 has been
passed against the factual aspects and
hence is illegal and is not a compliance of
the directions issued by this court on
10.07.2006.

6.

Having
considered
the
submissions of learned counsels for the
parties and perused the records, it is not
disputed that this court by the order dated
10.07.2006 passed in the writ petition
required
the
representation
of
the
petitioner to be decided within two
months by a reasoned and speaking order.
Admittedly, the representation of the
petitioner has been decided much after
two months. However, in the affidavit of
compliance filed by the opposite party it
has been stated that she has been posted
as
Director,
Basic
Education,
U.P.
Lucknow since 22.05.2007 and earlier she
was posted as Director, Rajya Saikshik
Anusandhan
and
Training
Course,
Lucknow.

7. A perusal of the order dated
03.07.2007 indicates that the opposite
party has passed a reasoned and speaking
order whereby it has been held that the
petitioner is legally not entitled for
admission to the Special BTC Training
Course, 2004.

8. Insofar as the delay in deciding
the representation of the petitioner is
concerned, it is settled law that even after
issue of notice in contempt proceedings, if
the opposite party complies with the
directions to decide the representation of
the petitioner, the courts would not insist
that the delay was willful and deliberate
defiance of the order of the High Court.

9. It has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lalith
Mathur vs. L. Maheshwara Rao (2000) 10
SCC 285 in paragraph 4 as quoted
hereunder: -

"The High Court in the writ petition
had
issued
a
direction
for
the
consideration
of
the
respondent's
representation by the State Government.
This direction was carried out by the State
Government which had considered and
thereafter rejected the representation on
merits. Instead of challenging that order
in a fresh writ petition under Article 226,
the respondent took recourse to contempt
proceedings which did not lie as the order
2 All] Medi Lal V. Achala Khanna
589
had already been complied with by the
State Government which had considered
the representation and rejected it on
merits."

10. In the case of G.S. Parihar vs.
Ganpat Duggar (1996) 6 SCC 291, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that correctness
of an order passed by a Statutory
Authority on the directions of the writ
court cannot be examined under contempt
jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board
and another vs. G.S. Investments and
another (2007) 1 SCC 477 held in
paragraph 12 as quoted under: -

"It appears that the respondent
initiated contempt proceedings against the
appellants in which a learned Single
Judge passed an order on 04.04.2005
observing that the order passed by the
Court on 04.08.2004 had not been
complied with in letter and spirit and a
further direction was issued to comply
with the said order within two weeks. The
material placed before us shows that
Appellant 1 had issued a notice to the
respondent on 15.03.2005 and after giving
a personal hearing on the next day, had
rejected its representation by the order
dated 18.03.2005. In these circumstances,
there was no occasion for initiating any
contempt
proceedings
against
the
appellants"

11. In the present case, it is not
denied that the order dated 03.07.2007 has
been passed by the opposite party
deciding
the
representation
of
the
petitioner and therefore, although notices
in this contempt petition were issued on
09.05.2007, the decision has been taken
by the opposite party in compliance of the
order dated 10.07.2006 passed by this
court in the writ petition. As such, this
court is not inclined to accept the
contention of learned counsel for the
applicant that mere delay in deciding the
representation of the petitioner would be a
deliberate and willful disobedience of the
directions issued by this court in the writ
petition.

12. Insofar as the merits of the order
dated 03.07.2007 is concerned, learned
counsel for the petitioner has argued that
the conclusions and findings recorded in
the said order are patently illegal,
factually wrong and requires to be set
aside. Such argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner is being advanced in a
contempt petition wherein this court has
to see the disobedience of the order
passed by the writ court. The writ court
had directed the representation of the
petitioner to be decided. There was no
direction by the writ court regarding the
merits of the claim made by the petitioner
nor any observation or direction was
made with respect to such claim by the
High Court. Once the directions for
deciding
the
representation
of
the
petitioner was issued and such directions
have been complied with by the authority
concerned by passing a reasoned and
speaking order, it cannot be said that if
the said order is factually or legally
incorrect or wrong, the opposite party
would be liable to be punished under the
Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner, if
he is aggrieved by the order passed by the
authority in pursuance of such a direction
issued by this court could avail the
remedy available to him in law. This
contempt petition cannot be proceeded
with for the aforesaid reasons.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, there
is no merit in this contempt petition. It is
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
accordingly dismissed. Notices, if any,
issued
to
the opposite parties are
discharged.

14. No order is passed as to costs.
Contempt Rejected.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE VEDPAL, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1911 of 2008

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

 ...Appellant/Defendant
Versus
Smt. Kamla Devi and others

...Claimants/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anupam Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:

Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section-166-Just
and
proper
compensation-monthly
income of deceased-on oral evidence
assessed by Tribunal as Rs.6,000/-after
deduction 1/3-as per Rs.4,000 awarded
Rs.2,40,000/- challenged on the groundwhen there is no direct evidence about
monthly income-in the garb of just
compensation-can not be estimatedheld-totally
mis
conceived-even
oral
evidence-no denied or contradictionvalue of life can not be estimated in
terms
of
money-No
case
for
interference-appeal dismissed in limne.

Held: Para 4

Being so, we cannot interfere with the
judgement and order impugned before
us. Therefore, we are of the view that
the
appeal
will
be
treated
to
be
dismissed at the stage of admission.
Accordingly, it has been done, however,
without imposing any cost.
Case law discussed:
2003(3) TAC 569

{Delivered by Hon'ble Arnitava Lala, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the Insurance Company challenging the
judgement and order dated 2nd April 2008
passed by the concerned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Fatehpur awarding a
sum of Rs.2,57,000/- as compensation
along with interest @ 6% thereon.

2. The only one issue has been
raised before us by the Insurance
Company that there was no evidence with
regard to the income of the deceased for a
sum of Rs.6,000/- as accepted by the
Tribunal. It appears to us that the claim
petition was filed by the claimants under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The Court had arrived at such
figure of compensation of Rs.6,000/- on
the basis of oral testimony and after the
deduction of Rs.2,000/-, on being 1/3rd
deduction of Rs.6,000/-, arrived at figure
of Rs.4,000/- and the compensation was
awarded for Rs.2,40,000/- along with the
funeral expenses etc .. It is specifically
recorded in the judgement itself that there
was no denial or rebuttal on the part of the
Insurance
Company.
The
Insurance
Company has relied upon a judgement
delivered by the Supreme Court reported
in 2003(3) TAC 569 (State of Haryana
Vs. Jasbir Kaur) and said that when
there is no material before the Tribunal to
arrive at monthly income for the purpose
of considering "just" compensation, it
cannot be estimated.

3. We are of the view that the
argument, as advanced by the learned