Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
Ish Kumar Vlecha - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 17108 OF 2019.
Decided On : 21-11-2023
For the Petitioner: In Person.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra.
A petitioner must meet all procedural requirements for auction participation; failure to comply permits denial of rights, especially within contempt proceedings against defamatory allegations toward the judiciary.
Headnote:(A) High Court Rules - Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt Proceedings - The petitioner aggrieved by refusal of allotment of plots filed writ petitions, making wild allegations against judges. The court issued notices for criminal contempt on multiple occasions and directed the Parishad to consider petitioner's applications for plot allotment. However, the refusal was based on non-compliance with auction terms, particularly that the total token money deposited was insufficient relative to the required amounts for the plots. The court found the allegations against the judiciary to be defamatory and offensive. (Paras 1-6, 20, 42-47)
(B) Legal Principles - Committal to Contempt - Demonstrating reckless and unfounded allegations against the judiciary can lead to contempt proceedings, especially when efforts are made to demean the integrity of the court. (Paras 1, 2)
(C) Judicial Review - The need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in public auctions, emphasizing that the failure to deposit required token amounts undermines claims for participation. (Paras 20, 34, 42)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged wrongful refusal to allot plots despite submitting applications with token money via NEFT, objecting to auction processes claimed as arbitrary. He faced contempt proceedings for derogatory remarks against judges in ongoing petitions. (Paras 1, 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory financial conditions related to the auction participation thereby, his claims were rejected; contempt proceedings upheld for defamatory statements. (Paras 40-47)
Issues: Whether the petitioner met financial requirements for auction participation and the justification for contempt proceedings. (Paras 2, 46)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to comply with auction terms justified the withholding of participation rights, reiterating the seriousness of maintaining judicial decorum and the implications of contemptuous behavior. (Paras 20, 42)
Result: Writ petition dismissed; contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioner upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations against judges and context. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's grievances regarding plot allotment. (Para 2) |
| 3. details of writ petition no. 23656 of 2018. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. criminal contempt proceedings initiated. (Para 4) |
| 5. contempt proceedings connected with current case. (Para 8) |
| 6. petitioner's arguments on procedural impropriety and malpractice. (Para 10 , 14) |
| 7. allegations of fraud and contest over deposited amounts. (Para 18 , 20) |
| 8. court's assessment on eligibility and compliance with auction terms. (Para 21 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. court's decisions based on compliance of auction terms. (Para 31 , 32 , 37) |
| 10. final adjudication and dismissal of the petition. (Para 42 , 47) |
JUDGMENT
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
Facts of this case are unusual and disturbing. Extremely wild and contumacious allegations have been levelled against sitting and retired judges of this Court, by the petitioner in person. Criminal contempt proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the matter, it would be apt to refer to the background facts.
2. Petitioner Ish Kumar Valecha is primarily aggrieved by the action of respondent U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Parishad'), in not considering his application for allotment of plots in a scheme advertised by the Parishad. The petitioner initially approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 23656 of 2018 against the State of U.P. and the Parishad wherein following reliefs were sought:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned auction notice published in daily news paper Amar Ujala dated 05.07.2018 and its after effects etc. for future too and in respect of properties only of Saharanpur District [Meerut Zone), (Annexure No. 2 to this writ claim representation of rights).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS in the alternative commanding the Parishad respondents to hold the concern auction only from amongst the old depositors those participants who tried to deposit token money prior to fixed date 15.01.2018 accepting amount deposited on receipt issued by respondent through bank corrected its Account number.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents not to issue any fresh auction notice in future with regard to property of Sahranpur and to provide right account number and permit the petitioner to deposit rest returned amount digital mode also and to reimburse for the losses sustained by to the extent as referred in paragraph.... Of this writ claim representation.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to pay 18% monthly compound interest at the deposited token money to the petitioner and other depositors too till the date of its payment alike imposed upon their allottees by the respondents' policies.
(v) issue a wait, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to pay the compensation (Rs. 12,00,000/-) (compelled to born economical, mental and physical losses) plus 18% monthly compound interest to the petitioner as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case considering the age of the petitioner also.
vi) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
vii) To award the cost of the present writ claim representation in favour of petitioner."
3. In the aforesaid petition, apart from highlighting petitioner's grievance in respect of the allotment of plot scandalous and sweeping remarks were made against the judges of this Court. When the petition was heard by the Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, exception was taken to the wild allegations made in the petition. This is reflected from the following orders passed by the Court on 13.7.2018:
