^} ^•-^ IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR £CG^ CONTEMPT CASE r civil ) N0. r2>'^| /2009 PETITIONER /"'» ^^^ c-^. »<»..,^1 ^» ^yft'":...p^ a^.'"' Kanker Roadways, Through the Managing Partner, Preetam Singh Garcha S/o- late Jogendar Sing, aged about 62 years, R/o- Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS Awtar Singh S/o- Kikkar Singh, aged about 42 years, R/o- Mahendra Travels, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTIQN 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J Contempt Case (Civil) No.321/2009 Petitioner Respondent Kanker Roadways Versus Awtar Singh (Contempt Petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India) 'resent: - Shri S. K. Bajpai, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 01-02-2011) ~\. This cohtempt petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent on the allegation that the respondent filed a writ petition before this Court for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the transport authority for analogous hearing of complaints made by the petitioner as well as by the respondent by stating that the respondent had filed an application before the authority on 13-05-2009.1n the petition, the respondent pleaded which was also included in his representation that he filed a complaint on 13-05-20)9. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the case was listed for hearing on 17-08-2CX39, it was stated that the application dated 13-05-2009 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Regional Transport Authority and Taxation Authority, Raipur and eversince, no action has been taken on the said application. On such statement made, the State counsel submitted that the pending application of the respondent would be considered and decided in accordance with law on its own merits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt pf a copy ofthis order. In view of the submissions made by the -\ ^^^.i'<% ^' ^' '^ SS ^ ^••^'g-^ 1 •l S\; -L counsel for the parties, this Court flnally disposed off the petition by recordin< that nothing sun/ives for adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a petition before this Court by falsely stating that he had submitted application/complaint on 13-05-2009 which stetement was also made before this Court whereas on 13-05-2009, no such complaint was flled. Learned counsel further submitted that on information sought by the petitioner from the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, the Regional Transport Authority has informed vide letter dated 11-09-2009 that before 13-05-2009, the writ petitioner ^i.e. the respondent having submitted any apptication regarding the complaint in the office, there is no proof of submitting such application/complaint in the office. Learned counsel next submitted that on 14-09-2009 another letter was issued stating that there is no proof available in the records of the office to show that any complaintwas submitted in the office before 13-05-2009. Learned counsel further submits that though the respondent had not filed any applicationfcomplaint prior to 13-05-20)9 nor on 13-05-2009, yet it was stated before this Court that such an application was submitted before the Court on 13-05-2009. This according to him, is clear abuse of the proceedings of the Court, thereby amounting to contemptofCourt. 3. From the contents of the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure C-1, it is revealed that there is no specific pleading as to the date on which the respondent filed their complaint. From Annexure P-5 filed along with the writ petition, it is found that the respondent had moved an application before the Regional Transport Authority and Taxation Authority, Raipur. The application bears date 13-05-2009. The order was passed by this Court on 17-08-2009 in W.P.fQNo.4388 of 2009 which is annexed as Annexure C-2. The Court has recorded the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that apptication :;s»:'» \ dated 13-05-20re (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner is pending consideration. Thus, neither in the petition nor before the Court any submission was made that the application was filed on 13-05-2009. The application bears dated 13-05-2009. In the information dated 22-03-2010 which has been placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been disclosed by the Regional Transport Authority that the respondent did not submit any application on 13-05-20C®but ^ubmitted an application signed on 13-05-2009 received on 14-05-2009. 4. It therefore appears that when the matter was taken up by this Court on E08-2009 and submission was made on behalf ofthe petitioner, the respondent had filed an appfication on 14-05-2009 which application bears dated 13-05-20re. In the petition, it is not stated that the application was filed on 13-05-20re but it has been stated that the petitioner prayed for analogous hearing and application for analogous hearing is attached as Annexure P-5. Annexure P-5 bears dated 13-05-2009. Therefore, it appears that the respondent had prepared and signed the application on 13-05-2009 but it was submitted on 14-05-20re. 5. In this view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that the petitioner made any false statement before the Court. Order dated 17-08- records that application dated 13-05-2009 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration. Such a minor discrepancy, particularly when the application was actually filed and pending before the authority on the date when order was passed by this Court, in the opinion of this Court, does not make out any case for injtiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent. 6. I am therefore not inclined to issue notice to the respondent. 7. lhviewofforegoing,thepetitjonisdismissed. ~ ~ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 'N