Allahabad HC Summons Additional Chief Secretary In A Contempt Case For Not Complying With Its Order

What is the issue

• The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed the Additional Chief Secretary and Director of the Information Department of Uttar Pradesh to appear in the court on June 29th, in a contempt case.
• The Court had directed Additional Chief Secretary, Information Department Navneet Sehgal, and Director Shishir to allow Syed Amjad Hussain to continue as Joint Director in the Information Department. And they should be given salary and allowances as per rules, but this order of the court was not complied with.
• The court had on April 8th issued notices to Sehgal and Shishir who were handed over through their office. On hearing the contempt petition in the matter, the counsel for the state government told the court that they have not received any direction from the office of the two officers so far.

Observations of the Court

• The Allahabad High Court has summoned the Additional Chief Secretary and Director of the Information Department of Uttar Pradesh, Navneet Sehgal, and another person for not complying with the court’s order of reinstating Syed Amjad Hussain to continue as a joint director in the information department.
• The Lucknow Bench asked Sehgal to explain why he did not submit his instructions on the matter to the office of the Chief Standing Counsel despite service of summons on him through his office.
• The bench passed the order on a contempt petition moved by Syed Amzad Husain through senior advocate S C Mishra.
• The petitioner argued that the bench that the court had directed Sehgal and others to allow Husain to continue work on the post of joint director in the information department and pay him salary and allowance accordingly, but despite the dismissal of special appeal filed against that order, the order was not complied with.
• The bench had issued notices to Sehgal and another person which were served to them through their offices. In the present hearing, the state counsel informed the court that he did not receive any such instructions from them in his office.
• The court expressing serious concern over this said that the non-sending of instructions to the advocate by the authorities on the contempt petition, especially when notices had also been sent to him through his office, showed the negligent attitude of these officers.
• The court asked both the officers to explain why they did not send their directions to the office of the Chief Permanent Advocate despite the notice being issued.

What are your thoughts on this issue?