🏛️ Analysis of Grievance Concerning Non-Compliance with Court Order in Mirzapur

This document structures and analyzes the details of two related grievances filed by Ashok Kumar Maurya regarding the alleged non-compliance and contempt of a court order by opposing parties, with repeated appeals for intervention directed at the local police station (Jigna) and subsequently escalated within the Uttar Pradesh administration.

---

I. Grievance Overview and Key Details

The core issue revolves around the failure of the Station House Officer (SHO) of Jigna Police Station, District Mirzapur, to enforce a provisional injunction issued by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mirzapur. The opposing party is accused of continuing construction/encroachment activities, specifically digging a house foundation, on the disputed land despite the judicial order.

Grievance 1: GOVUP/E/2024/0096233 (Latest)

Detail	Description
Complainant	Ashok Kumar Maurya
Date of Receipt	28/12/2024
Received By	Uttar Pradesh
Current Status	Grievance received
Action Date	28/12/2024
Forwarded To	Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary), Chief Minister Secretariat, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow
Core Allegation	Despite repeated promises by the SHO Jigna to comply with and implement the court order, anti-social elements dug the foundation of a house yesterday on the impugned boundary without court permission, directly contradicting the SHO’s assurances.

Grievance 2: GOVUP/E/2023/0034257 (Earlier)

Detail	Description
Complainant	Ashok Kumar Maurya
Date of Receipt	27/05/2023
Received By	Uttar Pradesh
Addressed To	SHO Police Station- Jigna, District- Mirzapur
Core Allegation	The applicant had met the SHO and provided a copy of the stay order, but no attempt was made to stop the work, leading to the contempt of the Honourable Court’s order. The applicant stressed that the SHO would be responsible for the disobedience due to the duty to ensure order compliance.

---

II. Judicial Order and Disputed Property Details

The grievance directly references a court order that forms the basis of the complainant’s appeal for police intervention.

Details of the Provisional Injunction

• Issuing Authority: Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mirzapur.
• Date (Cited): 22/09/2023 (The date appears on the document, possibly the date of a subsequent extract or a related order, while the application 6C hearing date was fixed for 15.07.2023).
• Basis for Injunction: Perusal of revenue records (Extract from List 10C, Khasra Crop Year 1429 Paper No. 10C/2009) indicated sufficient ground to issue a provisional injunction to prevent the purpose of the claim from being defeated.
• Directive: Respondent No. 1 was forbidden to proceed to the land parcel (complainant No. 105, acreage $0.04200$, shown in the vision map with letters A, B, C, D) in Village Vihasda Khurd, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur.
• Conditions: The order was provisional until disposal of the objection to application 6C fixed for 15.07.2023 and would automatically lapse upon an order from any other court. Litigants were required to comply with Order 39 Rule 3 GD.

---

III. Critical Analysis of Police and Administrative Action

The sequence of events highlights a significant gap between the assurance of compliance and the actual prevention of the alleged contempt.

Failure of the Jigna Police Station (SHO)

1. Early Non-Action (Grievance 2 – May 2023): The initial complaint explicitly states that despite the applicant meeting the SHO and providing the stay order, no attempt was made to stop the work. This suggests a fundamental failure of duty in enforcing a judicial directive, which is paramount for the rule of law. The complainant clearly warned the SHO about responsibility for the disobedience.
2. Breach of Assurance (Grievance 1 – December 2024): The later grievance is more serious, suggesting a deliberate disregard for the law after official assurances were given. The SHO reportedly promised that the court order had not been encroached upon and would be complied with in letters and spirit. However, the subsequent act of digging the foundation proves these assurances to be false or, at minimum, shows a total lack of effective supervision and enforcement. The foundation being dug “yesterday” (as of the filing date) directly contravenes the court’s “forbidden to proceed” directive.

Escalation to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat

The escalation of the grievance to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, addressed to Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary), signifies the complainant’s exhaustion with the local police mechanism. The complaint has moved from a request for simple enforcement to an appeal for administrative accountability against an agency (the local police) that has allegedly failed in its primary duty and possibly provided misleading reports.

---

IV. Legal and Administrative Implications

The situation has two distinct implications: legal (contempt) and administrative (dereliction of duty).

• Contempt of Court: The act of continuing construction, specifically digging a foundation on the disputed property despite an explicit court order forbidding it, constitutes a clear case of civil contempt of the court’s provisional injunction. The court’s order was meant to preserve the status quo.
• Dereliction of Duty: The primary administrative implication is the alleged dereliction of duty by the SHO, Jigna. When a police officer is made aware of a judicial order and requested to enforce it to prevent a breach of the peace and contempt of court, inaction, or worse, providing false assurance of compliance while the contemptuous act proceeds, warrants an internal inquiry and disciplinary action.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability

The applicant’s demand for “transparency and accountability” is well-founded. The failure of the police to ensure the integrity of the judicial process undermines public trust. The escalation to the Joint Secretary is intended to leverage higher administrative authority to:

1. Immediately Halt Construction: A fresh, high-level directive to the District Superintendent of Police must be issued to ensure the immediate and forceful cessation of all work on the disputed plot (Khasra No. 105).
2. Investigate Police Conduct: An investigation must be ordered into the conduct of the SHO, Jigna, to determine why the court order was not enforced and why the applicant was given assurances that were immediately contradicted by the opposing party’s actions.
3. Report Compliance to the Court: The executive branch must ensure that the court is apprised of the non-compliance and the contempt proceedings can be initiated against the errant parties.

The progression of the two grievances, from a direct appeal for intervention to an appeal against administrative failure, illustrates a severe breakdown in the local machinery for maintaining law and order and upholding judicial directives. The Joint Secretary’s office is now tasked with rectifying this systemic failure and ensuring the sanctity of the provisional injunction.