# Wasim Ahmad and others v. Sri Ram Saroop Gupta and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 722
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1205 of 2002
- **Bench:** Sushil Harkauli
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/wasim-ahmad-and-others-v-sri-ram-saroop-gupta-and-another-39932
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Contempt of Court's Act- Section 12-
wilfull disobedience- Treasury Officer
refused to obey the order passed by the
execution court on the ground-the CMO
is the drawing and disbursing Authority-
the
objection
raised
by
T.O.
held
baseless- direction issued by execution
court-steps into the shoes of drawing
and disbursing authority- disobedience
not
deliberate-no
further
action
in
contempt required.

Held- Para 3 and 6

I am of the opinion that the contention
of the Chief Treasury Officer is based
upon a misconception of the legal
position. Firstly, Order 21 Rule 56 of the
Code of Civil Procedure which is a
statutory provision will over ride the
financial rules, Secondly, when the court
attaches any fund lying with the Chief
Treasury Officer and directs for payment
of the same under order 21 Rule 56 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court to
the extent of those amounts directed to
be paid, steps into the shoes of drawing
and disbursing Officer.

The disobedience of the order of the
executing court on part of the Chief
Treasury Officer was not deliberate and
thus apart from the direction given
above, no further action in this contempt
petition is called for.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
Management proceeded to make adhoc
appointment. Management's clear stand in
its counter affidavit to the writ petition
was that resolution passed in favour of the
petitioner- appellant on 4th September,
1983 giving him promotion as lecturer in
Sanskrit was under mistake since 40%
promotion quota was already filled up. In
view
of
the
aforesaid,
the
adhoc
appointment of respondent no. 4 by direct
recruitment was void and contrary to
provisions of Removal of Difficulties
Order, 1981 and the law laid down by
Full Bench in Km. Radha Raizada's
case (supra). The District Inspector of
Schools who was requested to approve
appellant's promotion on adhoc basis was
under misconception that approval cannot
be granted since 40% promotion quota
has been filled and in that premises he
proceeded to fill the post by direct
recruitment.
The
order
of
District
Inspector of Schools dated 24 May, 1988
approving the appointment by direct
recruitment of respondent no. 4 cannot be
sustained and is hereby quashed.

16. The next question which is to be
considered is that in view of the facts of
the present case to what relief the
appellant is entitled. As noted above,
adhoc promotion of the petitioner did not
require any prior approval of the District
Inspector of Schools. Learned single
Judge has also recorded a finding in the
order that there is nothing on the record to
prove that requisition was sent to the
District Inspector of Schools before 4th
September, 1983 on which date resolution
was passed in favour of the appellant.
Learned single Judge has found that for
the first time intimation to the District
Inspector of Schools was sent on 20
March 1987. In view of the aforesaid, it
will be appropriate that petitioner will be
held entitled for adhoc promotion from
the date when the District Inspector of
Schools approved the adhoc appointment
of respondent no. 4 i.e. 24th May, 1988.
In view of the fact that there is dispute of
fact as to who functioned during the
period as lecturer, it is appropriate that
petitioner- appellant be treated to be
adhoc lecturer in Sanskrit with effect from
24 May, 1988 but there being dispute
regarding working of the post, it is
appropriate to direct that petitioner-
appellant's salary may be fixed in lecturer
grade giving benefit of proforma fixation
and salary already paid to respondent no.
4 during the period he worked should also
not be recovered from respondent no. 4 or
from the petitioner- appellant if he has
been paid any salary in lecturer grade.
Salary of appellant in lecturer grade be
fixed within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of this order and
appellant be paid salary in lecturer's grade
from the date of this order.

17. In view of the foregoing
discussions, this appeal is partly allowed
to the extent as indicated above. Parties
shall bear their own costs.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUSHIL HARKAULI, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1205 of
2002

Wasim Ahmad and others
...Applicants
Versus
Sri Ram Saroop Gupta and another

 ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Wasim Ahmad and others V. Sri Ram Saroop Gupta and another
723
Sri Vivek Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Contempt of Court's Act- Section 12-
wilfull disobedience- Treasury Officer
refused to obey the order passed by the
execution court on the ground-the CMO
is the drawing and disbursing Authority-
the
objection
raised
by
T.O.
held
baseless- direction issued by execution
court-steps into the shoes of drawing
and disbursing authority- disobedience
not
deliberate-no
further
action
in
contempt required.

Held- Para 3 and 6

I am of the opinion that the contention
of the Chief Treasury Officer is based
upon a misconception of the legal
position. Firstly, Order 21 Rule 56 of the
Code of Civil Procedure which is a
statutory provision will over ride the
financial rules, Secondly, when the court
attaches any fund lying with the Chief
Treasury Officer and directs for payment
of the same under order 21 Rule 56 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court to
the extent of those amounts directed to
be paid, steps into the shoes of drawing
and disbursing Officer.

The disobedience of the order of the
executing court on part of the Chief
Treasury Officer was not deliberate and
thus apart from the direction given
above, no further action in this contempt
petition is called for.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.)

1. To satisfy a decree of the Court
certain amounts lying in the treasury in
the salary account of the CMO Allahabad,
were attached by the executing court.
Subsequently the executing court directed
the Chief Treasury Officer to draw and
make payment of certain amounts out of
that attached amount to the decree holder.
The said direction was not complied with
and accordingly this Contempt Petition
was filed.

2. The counter affidavit filed in this
contempt petition by Sri Ram Swarup
Gupta, Chief Treasury Officer, Allahabad,
states by way of defence that the amount
could not be paid pursuant to the order of
the executing court because the CMO
Allahabad who was the drawing and
disbursing officer (DDO), did not submit
the bill. According to the contention
advanced on behalf of the Chief Treasury
Officer, he is the custodian of funds
allocated by the State Government to the
particular account of the DDO, to be
drawn and disbursed in accordance with
the financial rules. Hence he finds himself
unable to comply with the orders of the
executing Court.

3. Having considered the matter, I
am of the opinion that the contention of
the Chief Treasury Officer is based upon
a misconception of the legal position.
Firstly, Order 21 Rule 56 of the Code of
Civil Procedure which is a statutory
provision will over-ride the financial
rules. Secondly, when the Court attaches
any fund lying with the Chief Treasury
Officer and directs for payment of the
same under Order 21 Rule 56 of the Code
of Civil. Procedure, the Court to the
extent of those amounts directed to be
paid, steps into the shoes of drawing and
disbursing officer.

4. The position is some what similar
to the case where the defendant in a suit
for specific performance does not execute
the required sale deed and the Court steps
into the shoes of judgment debtor and
executes the sale deed on his behalf,
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
which is valid as if the same has been
executed by the judgment debtor himself.

5. Thus the Chief Treasury Officer
will treat the executing court as the
drawing and disbursing officer and will
accordingly draw and pay the amount to
the decree holder within three weeks from
today.

6. In view of what has been stated
above I am of the opinion that the
disobedience of the order of the executing
Court on part of the Chief Treasury
Officer was not "deliberate", and thus
apart from the direction given above, no
further action in this Contempt Petition is
called for.

7. Therefore, with the aforesaid
direction
this
contempt
petition
is
disposed of finally.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28185 of 1998

Vishnu

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Commissioner and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Cancellation of fire arms- on the ground
of involvement in criminal cases- during
pendency of Appeal- petitioner got fair
acquittal- Dismissal of appeal on new
ground
of
suspection
of
criminal
activities- held- illegal cancellation order
quashed.
Held- Para 2

The appellate authority in its order
impugned in the present writ petition
has noticed the fact that the petitioner
has no doubt been acquitted in both
these
criminal
cases
on
the
basis
whereof the petitioner's firearm licence
was revoked, but the appellate authority
has dismissed the petitioner's appeal on
the ground which is neither relevant for
the revocation of the licence, nor the
petitioner was served with a notice and
was asked to explain as to why his
aforesaid firearm licence should not be
revoked. In this view of the matter, the
appellate authority has carved out a new
case in its order, which has never been
taken by the licensing authority for
revocation of the firearm licence of the
petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1978 AWC-122
1972 ALJ-573
2002 (i) 501

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. The petitioner, who is a license of
a firearm D.B.B.L. gun, approaches this
Court by means of the present writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India against the order
passed by the Licensing Authority/District
Magistrate, Meerut dated 13.08.1993,
whereby the licensing authority revoked
the aforesaid licence issued to the
petitioner. A perusal of the notice as well
as the impugned order revoking the
firearm
licence
of
the
petitioner
demonstrate that the licence of firearm of
the petitioner has been revoked on the
ground that he was involved in two
criminal cases, which are case crime no.
39 of 1991 and 1 of 1992, under different
sections of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the