HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Contempt Petition No. 32 of 2005 ;APPLICANTS 1. Smt. Kiran Devi Agrawal, W/o Ram Bhagat Agrawal, aged about 42 years, R/o Gudhiyari, Raipur (CG) 2. Smt. Mitali Agrawal, W/o Deepak Agrawal, aged about 24 years, R/o Gudhiyari, Raipur (CG) Petitioners 1 and 2 are filing the present petition through their power of attorney holder Shri Deepak Agrawal, S/o Ram Bhagat Agrawalvaged about 26 years, R/o Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G). 3. Smt. Kalpana Dholakia, w/o Rajendra Prasad Dholakia, aged about Years, r/o Kharyar Road, Distt. Kalahandi (Orissa) 4i Smt. Meena Dholakia, w/o Dilip Dholakia, aged about Years, R/o Kharyar Road, Distt. Kalhandi Orissa). Petitioners 3 & 4 are filing the present petition through their power of attorney holder Shri Ram Bhagat Agrawal, s/o Hazari Prasad Agrawal, aged about 50 years, r/o Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G) Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. Shri R.P. Mandale, Colleetor, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 2. Shri S.K. Gupta, Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board having its office at’Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA APPEARANCE: Mr. Anand Dadariya, counsel for the petitioners. \\ Mr. B. D. Guru, counsel for respondent no.1. . Mr. Jitendera Pali, counsel for respondent no.2. \ ( 2 CONTEMPT PETITION N0..32/2005 ORDER (24.1 1 .2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard. The petitioners herein were also the petitionemin W.P.No.§81/2005. They have filed this contempt petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for the alleged willful violation of the order dated 09.02.2005 passed in W.P. No.381/2005. On 09.02.2005 while issuing the notice on M.W.P.No.328/2005 and fixing the case for final hearing on 1s‘ of March, 2005, this Court directed that in the meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo. ‘ Mr: Dadariya learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the respondents did not maintain status quo in as much as a publication was made on 15.02.2005 whereas the order was brought to the notice of the concerned respondent no.1 on 11.02.2005 and in this manner they have willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court. On the other hand, Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 submits that when the order passed by this Court was brought to the notice of the concerned Collector on 11.2.2005,on the same date that is 11.2.2005,the concerned Collector immediately issued directions for implementation of the order of the status quo passed by this Court. He refers to the memo Annexure R-1/3 issued by the Collector to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur. About the publication, he argues that the matter for publication was sent prior to service of the order on the Collector, therefore, the publication was done on 15.02.2005. Mr. Pali Submits that respondent no.2 was never a party in the writ petition, he was not aware of any order passed by this Court. However, when he came to know about the order through the concerned Collector, he did take no such step on which it may be said that he has committed willful default of the order of the status quo. l have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the contempt case. By letter dated 11th of Feb. 2005 (Annexure R—1/3) the concerned collector has written to the Sub- Divisional Officer-cum-Land‘Acquisition Officer, Raipur and has directed for maintaining status quo. According to Mr. Dadariya, the Stay order was served on the \ Collector on 11.2.2005. When on the said date the Collector had taken proper steps to ensure the compliance of the status quo order passed by V 3 \ CONTEMPT PETITION No.32/2005 "\ ,1 this Court, it cannot be said that either he committed default in compliance of the order of this Court or he ignored the said order. So far as publication on 15.02.2005 is concerned; sufficient explanation has been given by the respondents. If the publication was done on the earlier correspondence made for publication, it cannot be said that iit was in consequence of the willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. In view of the reply filed by the respondents and particularly in View of the contents of the letter dated 11.02.2005, l am not inclined to proceed in this matter any more. ‘ The petition has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sunil Kumar Sinha/K > Judge i Sdl— Va