Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 145 (ALL)

MOHD. WASEEM v. MASAUD AKTAR

2003-01-24

RAKESH TIWARI

body2003
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner had applied for loan from the U. P. Alp Sankhayak Vittiya Avam Vikash nigam, Lucknow and was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 46,250. The loan was to be repaid in quarterly instalment of Rs. 2,738. He deposited only one instalment on 23. 6. 1997. When he did not deposit the instalment in time according to the terms and conditions of loan, he was taken into custody by the Tehsil authorities and put in lockup. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 39691 of 2002 praying that some time be allowed to him to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 73,210 i. e. , (loan plus interest) as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, which could not be deposited by him due to poverty and being under treatment. The petition was disposed of by an order/judgment dated 26. 9. 2002 granting stay of recovery for a period of 3 months. It was further directed that during this period, the petitioner must pay the amount in question. If he does so, no recovery charges will be realized. The order is as under : "the petitioner is challenging impugned recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is prepared to pay the amount due but needs sometime to pay the same. On the farts of the ease, we stay recovery for a period of three months but during this period, petitioner must pay the amount in question. If he does so no recovery charges will be realised. Petition is disposed of. " ( 3 ) FROM the facts as narrated above in the contempt application it appears that the petitioner deposited another instalment of Rs. 2,800 on 6. 1. 2003. He has now filed this contempt application for taking action against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Masaud Aktar, General manager Uttar Pradesh Alp Sankhayak Vittiya Avam Vikash Nigam, 746 Jawahar Bhawan, lucknow and Satya Prakash Singh, Tahslldar Sadar, district Shahjahanpur respectively for disobeying the orders dated 26. 9. 2002 passed by this Court on the ground that they did not make available to him the accounts showing the amount to be paid by him. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the applicant had admitted the amount in Annexure-7 of the writ petition as due against him. 9. 2002 passed by this Court on the ground that they did not make available to him the accounts showing the amount to be paid by him. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the applicant had admitted the amount in Annexure-7 of the writ petition as due against him. He himself has not complied with the orders of this Court dated 26. 9. 2002, as he has not deposited the amount in question as directed under the aforesaid orders. ( 4 ) FURTHER, no direction was given in the judgment dated 26. 9. 2002 to the respondents for giving any account as the amount was admittedly due by the petitioner. If the petitioner himself has not complied with the orders of this Court in letter and spirit, he cannot have any grievance and filing of the contempt application is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. It is established fact from the record that the applicant has breached the undertaking given by him to the Court that he will deposit the whole amount. ( 5 ) THE contempt petition is dismissed with fine of Rs. 1,000 on the petitioner, which he shall deposit before respondent No. 1 within a period of one month from today. If he fails to deposit the same, the amount of fine may also be recovered as arrears of land revenue. .