Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/355/2025 of PRADIP CHAKRABORTY Vs ABHAY KARANDIKAR on 9 October 2025
OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 355 of 2025 Pradip Chakraborty ........Petitioner Versus Mr. Abhay Karandikar and another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India for the
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Contempt Petition No. 355 of 2025
Pradip Chakraborty
........Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Abhay Karandikar and another
….….Respondents
Present:-
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents.
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.
Judgment
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the order dated 04.10.2024, passed in WP (S/S) No. 1669 of 2019, Pradip Chakraborty & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors., has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. By the order dated 04.10.2024, the Court had directed as follows:- “4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation to the Director, ARIES within two weeks from today. If petitioners make representation within stipulated time, Director, ARIES shall take decision in the matter within six months thereafter.”
4. Petitioner himself has produced Annexure 3, an order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Registrar, Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences, by which the representation of the petitioner has already been decided.
2
5. Since, the Court had merely directed the authority to take a decision on the representation, which has already been taken, it is not a case of wilful disobedience. Hence, the contempt proceedings deserve to be closed.
6. The contempt proceedings are closed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
09.10.2025 Avneet/