# Paras Nath and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 333
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/paras-nath-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39725
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
333
and intentional. If from the circumstances
of a particular case, brought to the notice
of the court, the court is satisfied that
although there has been a disobedience
but such disobedience is the result of
some compelling circumstances under
which it was not possible for the
contemner to comply with the order, the
court
may
not
punish
the
alleged
contemner."

16. Therefore, before holding guilty
for the alleged defiance of the order, the
court is required to take into consideration
all facts and circumstances of a particular
case and has to be satisfied that such disobedience
is
wilful,
deliberate
and
intentional
before
punishing
the
contemnor under the Contempt of Courts
Act. If however, it is found that there is
dis-obedience but such dis-obedience is
on
account
of
some
compelling
circumstances
under
which
it
is
impossible for the contemnor to comply
with the order, the contemner may not be
punished. In the case in hand as noticed
earlier there was only direction to
consider the petitioner for appointment in
accordance with law keeping in view the
vacancy position. In the absence of any
vacancy there is no occasion to consider
the
petitioner
for
appointment
and
therefore, no part of the order of this
Court can be said to have flouted by the
respondent-contemner.

17. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties at length and having regard
to all the facts and circumstances of the
case, in my opinion, there is no wilful
obedience on the part of the respondents
by not considering their claim for
appointment in view of the fact that no
vacancy exists. In such a circumstances, it
cannot be held that the respondents have
wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court
and as such liable to be punished for
committing contempt of this Court.

For the discussions made above, the
contempt petition is dismissed. The
respondents are discharged from the rule.
However, there will be no order as to
costs.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' '(&(0%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' '(&(0%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6 5$)$7 $/$0 -
7+( +21·%/( 6 5$)$7 $/$0 -

&LYLO 0LVF ZULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

3DUDV 1DWK DQG DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL 0' 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH ZULW
3HWLWLRQ&KDOOHQJLQJ HOHFWLRQ RQ JURXQG
RI GLVTXDOLILFDWLRQ $OWHUQDWLYH UHPHG\ E\
ZD\ RI HOHFWLRQ SHWLWLRQ DYDLODEOH ± :ULW
SHWLWLRQ KHOG QRW PDLQWDLQDEOH
+HOG ± 3DUD
,W KDV EHHQ DYHUUHG WKDW XQGHU 6HFWLRQ

'
GLVTXDOLILFDWLRQ
KDV
EHHQ
SUHVFULEHG 6LQFH WKH HOHFWHG PHPEHU LV
EHORZ
DJH
KH
LV
GLVTXDOLILHG
7KDW
DPRXQWV WR WKH IDFW WKDW QRPLQDWLRQ
SDSHU VKRXOG QRW KDYH EHHQ DFFHSWHG
DQG WKDW LV FRYHUHG XQGHU 6HFWLRQ &
8QGHU 6HFWLRQ & KH LV WR ILOH HOHFWLRQ
SHWLWLRQ ,Q WKDW YLHZ RI WKH PDWWHU ZH
DUH RI WKH RSLQLRQ WKDW HOHFWLRQ SHWLWLRQ
1All] Paras Nath and another V. State of U.P. and others
334
LV DSSURSULDWH UHPHG\ DQG ZULW SHWLWLRQ
GRHV QRW OLH

By the Court

1. Heard Shri M.D. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed challenging the election on two
grounds. Firstly that voter's name was
included in two wards and secondly, the
candidate was not duly qualified since he
was below age. Both the grounds are
covered by our judgment wherein it has
been
held
that
election
petition
is
appropriate remedy. So far as the first
ground is concerned we have already held
today in writ petition no. 53873 of 2000
that
the
petitioner
has
an
equally
efficacious and speedy alternative remedy
by way of filing an election petition. So
far as other ground is concerned Section
19 C provides as follows:

"19(c) that such person was not
qualified to be nominated as a candidate
for election or that the nomination paper
of the petitioner was improperly rejected."

3. It has been averred that under
Section 13 D disqualification has been
prescribed. Since the elected member is
below age he is disqualified. That
amounts to the fact that nomination paper
should not have been accepted and that is
covered under Section 19 C. Under
Section 19 C he is to file election petition.
In that view of the matter we are of the
opinion
that
election
petition
is
appropriate remedy and writ petition does
not lie.

4. The writ petition fails and is
dismissed.

5. Mr. Singh prays for certificate
under Article 134-A of the Constitution of
India for appeal to the Supreme Court.
We are of the view that the matter does
not involve substantial question of law of
general importance to grant leave. The
prayer for grant of leave is, therefore,
rejected.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -$18$5<
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -$18$5<
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -

&LYLO 0LVF ZULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

/DOODQ 3UDVDG
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 8WWDU 3UDGHVK DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6UL 00 5DL
6UL 3XUVKRWWDP 8SDGK\D\
6UL 6XGKDNDU 3DQGH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
0LVV 1DKHHG $UD 0RRQLV
6&

83 /DJKX 6LQFKDL %RULQJ 3URYLGKLJ\D
6HYD
1L\DPDZDOL
±

5
.D
'HSDUWPHQWDO
HQTXLU\
±
6XVSHQVLRQ
SHQGLQJ HQTXLU\ ± 2UGHU SDVVHG E\ DQ
2IILFHU
KLJKHU
LQ
UDQN
WKDQ
WKH
DSSRLQWLQJ
DXWKRULW\
±
/HJDOLW\
KHOG
YDOLG
+HOG ± 3DUD
7KH
RUGHU
RI
LQWHULP
VXVSHQVLRQ
LV
FDSDEOH
RI
EHLQJ
SDVVHG
E\
WKH
DSSRLQWLQJ RU WKH GLVFLSOLQDU\ DXWKRULW\
RU
DQ
DXWKRULW\
VXERUGLQDWH
WR
WKH
DSSRLQWLQJ DXWKRULW\ LI SHUPLVVLEOH XQGHU
WKH
UXOHV
RU
GXO\
DXWKRULVHG
LQ WKDW