Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/557/2020 of DURGA DEVI Vs K K UPADHAYAY on 31 December 2020
of 2020 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (via Video Conferencing) Mr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, Advocate for the respondent. The petitioner of this contempt petition has alleged non compliance of the judgment dated 08.10.2020, which was rendered in Writ
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
(via Video Conferencing)
Mr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, Advocate for the respondent.
The petitioner of this contempt petition has alleged non compliance of the judgment dated 08.10.2020, which was rendered in Writ Petition No.3506 (M/S) of 2019, Durga Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein he has contended that his writ petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court; on the basis of the earlier judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.760 (M/S) of 2019, Nitendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and others whereby by virtue of the judgment of 12.04.2019; while allowing the writ petition, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s application for registration of the new vehicle as per the decision of the District Mining Committee dated 28.02.2020 and 29.09.2020, which required adherence of certain principals for registration of new vehicle to be utilized for the mining activities, in which the petitioner is engaged. Particularly for example, in this contempt petition, the petitioner has claimed for registration of his new vehicle being Registration No.UK04 CB 5469 which he wants to utilized, as against his Mining License Registration No.NK I 5026.
The counsel for the parties agreed, to the fact that the contempt petition, the judgment sought to be enforced as against the judgment referred above is covered by an identical judgment, which had rendered in a Contempt Petition No.656 of 2019, Zameer vs. P.S. Bohra, as rendered by this Court on 28.02.2020, as well as the judgment dated 29.09.2020, which was rendered by this Court in a bunch of contempt petition with a leading contempt petition being Contempt Petition No.85 of 2020, Farman vs. K.K. Upadhyay. It is not in controversy and further the respondent’s counsel has admitted that the issue raised in this contempt petition stand squarely covered by the aforesaid two judgments referred above. Hence, this contempt petition too stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of 29.09.2020 as rendered in Contempt Petition No.85 of 2020, Farman vs. K.K. Upadhyay.
Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed and disposed of.
Arti
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
31.12.2020