Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) [India], August 25 (ANI): The Allahabad High Court has taken note of the efforts by Devi Patan Mandal Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal to ensure speedy progress in a civil suit pending for nearly 30 years concerning government Nazul land, while referring the controversy arising from her telephone interaction with the presiding judicial officer for consideration by the court dealing with criminal contempt.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi was hearing a transfer application concerning Suit No. 721 of 1997, Jyoti Vidya Mandir v. Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda. The suit was pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, had reached the evidence stage and an interim status quo order was continuing in the matter.
The record before the High Court showed that Commissioner Nagpal took charge on April 21 and during a public hearing came to know about the dispute concerning government Nazul land and the fact that the litigation had remained pending for around three decades. According to her report, she thereafter directed the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Palika officials, revenue authorities and government counsel to remain informed about the case and ensure effective representation.
The Commissioner stated that she subsequently learnt that the presiding officer was on prolonged leave. On July 15, she contacted the Civil Judge to enquire when she was likely to return and whether her leave would be extended. In her report, the Commissioner specifically stated that the call was only for obtaining information regarding the judge’s leave and that there was no discussion about the pending case during the conversation.
The Commissioner further stated that, as she did not receive a satisfactory response regarding the judge’s leave, she approached the District Judge the same day and requested that the long-pending case be taken up for early disposal.
She also stated that on August 3, she again approached the District Judge as the matter was listed for the following day, and the District Judge assured her that steps would be taken for its early disposal.
The State, while appearing before the High Court, also did not deny that the call had taken place. Its counsel submitted that the purpose of the conversation was to know how long the Civil Judge would remain on leave and whether she would extend it. The State further informed the court that the Commissioner had subsequently reported the matter to the Administrative Judge.
The Civil Judge, however, reported the interaction to the District Judge and sought transfer of the suit. The District Judge thereafter withdrew the case from her court and transferred it to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC Naveen/ACJM, Gonda.
Since the suit had already been transferred, the High Court held that the transfer application before it had lost its efficacy. The court granted the applicant liberty to approach the District Judge with an appropriate application and raise all grounds available in law.
The High Court, however, separately examined the contents of the Civil Judge’s letter concerning her interaction with the Commissioner.
The court observed that the tone and language attributed to the telephone conversation gave a direct impression that the presiding officer felt she was being approached in a manner that could influence her. It stressed that judicial officers must have full freedom and independence in deciding litigation and must be able to discharge their functions fearlessly.
At the same time, the record before the High Court contained the Commissioner’s explanation that her concern arose from the prolonged pendency of the litigation and that her telephone call was made to ascertain the judicial officer’s leave status. The State also submitted that the purpose of the call was limited to this aspect.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey (1996), the High Court emphasised the importance of protecting judicial independence and ensuring that judicial officers are able to discharge their functions without pressure.
The High Court said that although the transfer application had lost its efficacy after the case was transferred, it could not shut its eyes to the contents of the Civil Judge’s letter. It prima facie found that the matter required consideration by the court dealing with criminal contempt.
The court accordingly directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate contempt court after seeking directions from the Chief Justice or the Senior Judge. The order was passed on August 21, 2026. (ANI)
Related reading
