In recent times, the Uttar Pradesh courts have issued orders addressing various pressing issues; however, pervasive violations of these mandates highlight a troubling trend. The continuous apathy and negligence exhibited by government functionaries in taking appropriate action against these violations raise serious concerns about accountability and governance. This disregard not only undermines the rule of law but also erodes public trust in the judicial system. Many individuals and communities, who look to the courts for justice and protection of their rights, find themselves disillusioned as government agencies fail to act in accordance with the court directives. The lack of urgency and commitment from officials to rectify these situations perpetuates a cycle of injustice, making it imperative for stakeholders to advocate for stricter enforcement of court orders and to hold government officials accountable for their inaction.

Uttar Pradesh Court Order Violations: The Case of Ashok Kumar Maurya

A civil court in Mirzapur froze all activity on a disputed plot of land. However, according to complainant Ashok Kumar Maurya, construction went ahead anyway, and local police allegedly looked the other way. In other words, a legal order meant to protect the land instead became a document that nobody enforced. Below, we walk through what happened, who’s involved, and what to do next if you’re facing something similar.

Related registration numbers: GOVUP/E/2025/0025244 and GOVUP/E/2025/0002668

---

1. What the court ordered — and what allegedly happened instead

On 22 September 2023, the Civil Judge of Mirzapur issued a provisional injunction on Plot No. 105, Village Vihasda Khurd. In plain terms, nobody could touch, build on, or change that land until the case was settled. This kind of order exists for a simple reason: without it, one party could permanently alter a property before a judge ever rules on who actually owns it.

According to the complainant, though, that’s not what happened. Instead, workers dug foundations and put up gates. Pratibha Devi and Gunja Devi, the two people accused of ordering this work, allegedly did it while police stood by and watched. Meanwhile, the injunction remained legally in force the entire time.

So the central question here is simple: if a judge freezes a piece of land, how does construction still happen on it? For the complainant, that question has only one plausible answer — someone with the power to stop it chose not to.

2. The Circle Officer’s role

Manjari Rao, the Circle Officer (C.O.) for Lalganj, is named directly in the complaint. Specifically, the complainant alleges that her reports to the Chief Minister’s Office were “arbitrary and inconsistent.” Rather than investigating why the court’s order was ignored, she reportedly just summarized the case, without addressing the underlying breach.

In addition, the complaint raises a few questions she hasn’t answered:

• Why didn’t officials stop construction the moment it started?
• Why did earlier reports leave out the physical changes to the land?
• Did something break down in the chain of command?

Furthermore, this isn’t just about one case. When reports on the Jansunwai portal — the state’s public grievance system — mislead the public, they also chip away at trust in the whole redressal process. Consequently, every citizen who files a grievance through that portal has reason to wonder whether their complaint will receive a genuine investigation or simply a paperwork exercise.

3. Allegations against the police

Sub-Inspector Rajesh Pandey of Jigna Police Station is the other central figure here. The complaint describes him as a “mute spectator” while the injunction was ignored, and it raises three specific allegations against him:

• Collusion — the opposing party could open a gate and start building only because Pandey allegedly helped, or deliberately looked away.
• Corruption — the complaint suggests money changed hands to secure that inaction.
• Misrepresentation — reports sent up to the Superintendent of Police reportedly protected subordinates rather than reflecting what was actually happening on the ground.

Taken together, these allegations paint a troubling picture. Indeed, if even one of them holds up, it suggests that an officer entrusted with upholding a court’s authority instead helped undermine it.

4. Where the Jansunwai (IGRS) system fell short

Jansunwai-IGRS exists precisely so citizens can escalate this kind of problem. Yet the complainant says officials marked earlier grievances “Closed,” attaching a note like “investigation report attached,” even though the report itself was false.

In response, the complainant rated the outcome “Dissatisfied” and flagged the attached report as inaccurate. After all, if a report claims the court order was followed while the land itself tells a different story, that’s a clear sign the verification step isn’t working. Moreover, closing a grievance on the strength of a disputed report — rather than an independent site visit — effectively rewards whoever files first, not whoever tells the truth.

5. Why this matters legally: contempt of court

Ignoring a stay order isn’t just a local dispute — it amounts to contempt of court. Two legal tools apply here:

• The Contempt of Courts Act
• Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows courts to attach property or detain anyone who defies an injunction

However, police carry a duty to prevent that defiance before it starts, not merely to document it afterward. So if they allow construction on land that’s sub judice (still before the court), they arguably enable contempt themselves. As a result, they send a troubling message: that money or influence can override a judge’s decision, and that court orders apply only to those without connections.

6. What needs to happen next

Given all of the above, a few concrete steps could restore some confidence in the process:

1. An independent inquiry. First, a senior officer from outside the Lalganj circle should physically verify the site against the court’s official map.
2. Disciplinary action, if investigators find that SI Rajesh Pandey or others ignored the construction.
3. Restoring the status quo. In addition, officials should immediately halt any construction done in violation of the order, pending the judge’s final decision.
4. Honest reporting. Finally, the CM’s Secretariat, specifically Joint Secretary Shri Arvind Mohan, should demand a report on the violation itself, not another rehash of the litigation.

---

Conclusion

Ultimately, this case tests the UP administration’s “Zero Tolerance” stance on corruption. If a citizen can’t rely on a court order to protect their land, and if police enable the violation rather than prevent it, that undermines the basic promise of the justice system. In short, a court order is only as strong as the willingness of the local administration to enforce it.

Therefore, the Circle Officer of Lalganj owes a straight answer to a straight question: how was construction possible while the court order was still in force? Until that question gets a real answer, the case remains a live test of whether ordinary citizens in Uttar Pradesh can trust the system meant to protect them.

---

How to escalate this — contact details

Because this case involves both a violation of a court order and allegations of police misconduct, use the specific channels below. Accordingly, we’ve organized them by level of authority, starting with the state offices in Lucknow and moving down to the district and departmental level.

Primary oversight authorities (Lucknow) (Uttar Pradesh Court Order Violations)

Office	Contact	Phone	Email / Link
CM Secretariat (Jansunwai)	Shri Arvind Mohan, Joint Secretary	0522-2226350	jansunwai.up.nic.in
Chief Minister Helpline	CM Helpline Team	1076	arvind.12574@gov.in
Home Department, UP	ACS Home	0522-2238383	upbhomes@nic.in

District authorities (Mirzapur) (Uttar Pradesh Court Order Violations)

These officials directly supervise the C.O. and S.I. named in the complaint, so they’re often the fastest route to a response.

• District Magistrate, Mirzapur — 05442-252200 · dmmi@nic.in · mirzapur.nic.in
• Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur — 05442-252100 / 9454400295 · spmz-up@nic.in · @mirzapurpolice
• Circle Officer, Lalganj (Manjari Rao) — Police Control Room: 05442-252323

Police integrity & anti-corruption channels (Uttar Pradesh Court Order Violations)

For the bribery and corruption allegations specifically, contact:

• Vigilance Establishment UP — upvigilance.nic.in · Helpline: 9454401861
• UP Police Internal Grievance — uppolice.gov.in
• DG Police, Lucknow — dgp-up@nic.in

Reference numbers to quote in any correspondence (Uttar Pradesh Court Order Violations)

Whenever you email or write to any of these offices, be sure to include the relevant number in your subject line:

• GOVUP/E/2025/0025244 — current grievance
• GOVUP/E/2025/0002668 — related to SI Rajesh Pandey
• GOVUP/E/2024/0096233 — previous violation report

Useful links (Uttar Pradesh Court Order Violations)

Finally, these portals are worth bookmarking if you plan to track this case or file a similar one:

e-Courts Services: https://services.ecourts.gov.in//

Jansunwai-IGRS Portal: https://jansunwai.up.nic.in/

UP Police Citizen Services: https://uppolice.gov.in/