Inter-Departmental Disputes No Excuse to Ignore Court Orders, Allahabad HC Says Top Bureaucrats Liable for Contempt

Observing that administrative confusion cannot dilute personal responsibility, the Allahabad High Court has held that the highest officers of a State department can be held liable for contempt if a court order is not complied with, even where the default is sought to be justified on inter-departmental confusion or shifting stands within the administrative machinery. Court held that such explanations amount to maladministration and cannot shield senior officials from accountability.

The observations came while deciding a long-pending contempt application filed by Vinay Kumar Singh, who had accused senior Uttar Pradesh government officials of wilfully disobeying a 2016 high court order declaring the acquisition of his land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The land in question, comprising several plots in village Bhairopur in Prayagraj district, was acquired in 1977 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Awards were passed in 1982 and 1984. Singh consistently maintained that compensation was never paid to him in accordance with law and that actual physical possession of the land was never taken. Although the land was initially acquired for the Irrigation Department, it was later transferred to the Urban Development Department for housing under the Kanshiram Ji Shahri Garib Awas Yojana, but remained unutilised.

In July 2016, the high court allowed Singh’s writ petition and held that the acquisition had lapsed, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation, which held that deposit of compensation in the government treasury does not amount to “payment”. Court directed release of the land. The State’s special leave petition against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in September 2017, giving finality to the judgment.

Despite this, the order was not implemented. Singh was forced to initiate contempt proceedings in 2017. During the course of the contempt case, the State repeatedly changed its stand, at times claiming that responsibility lay with the Irrigation Department, and at other times with the Urban Development Department. Court recorded that the applicant could not be treated like a “shuttlecock” between departments and described the conduct of officers as reflective of maladministration.

At one stage, senior officers including Additional Chief Secretaries and the District Magistrate were directed to appear personally before the court. In May 2022, the Chief Standing Counsel assured the court that the applicant’s dues would be cleared within a week, an assurance that was never honoured.

Subsequently, the State sought to justify non-compliance by relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation. The State argued that there was judicial ambiguity regarding Section 24 of the 2013 Act and that, under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution, it was bound to follow the later Supreme Court ruling rather than the 2016 high court order.

Rejecting this defence, the bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai held that overruling of a precedent only removes its binding value as law, not the finality of judgments already rendered between parties. It reiterated that even an erroneous order is binding until set aside through appropriate legal remedies. Court noted that the State neither sought review nor recall of the 2016 judgment or the Supreme Court’s 2017 order dismissing its special leave petition.

Court further held that the plea of administrative or legal confusion was artificial and raised solely to avoid contempt. It made clear that State officers cannot unilaterally decide not to comply with binding court orders by citing internal confusion, departmental disputes, or subsequent changes in law.

Emphasising the purpose of contempt jurisdiction, court observed that allowing such defences would undermine the rule of law and the stability of judicial decisions. It concluded that the State officials had knowingly and wilfully disobeyed the court’s order, making them liable for contempt.

However, court refrained from charging the opposite parties for contempt of court at the present stage in the matter. " (I) consider it appropriate that further time be granted to the opposite parties for compliance of the order passed by this Court," Justice Rai said. 

Accordingly, court granted one month’s further time to Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Prayagraj to comply with the order dated July 27, 2016.

Case Title: Vinay Kumar Singh vs. Suresh Chandra Princ.secy.irrigation Deptt.and 4 Ors.

Order Date: November 28, 2025

Bench: Justice Salil Kumar Rai