N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR N 3.3.: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUM SINHA ' 9 ; Contemgt Petition No.124/2005 M’s. ttamchand Dhariwal 8. Company, Raipur (C.G.) and others ' Vs. ‘« S.K. Lahra and another f ORDER . Post for Order 09009 Sd/— SUNILKUMRSINHA Juge /0 IOQ/ZO OQ U /j//2\ ‘A d i CONTEMPT PETITION NO.124I2005 g PETITIONERS 1 M/s. Uttamchand Dhariwal & Company, Raipur (0.6.) Through its Partner lnderchand Dhariwal, S/o Late Shri Uttamchand Dariwal, Aged about 60 years, R/o 45/4, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) ’ 2 Laxman Sahu, S/o Konda Sahu, Aged about 65 years { 3 Jagar Ram, S/o Somsai Sahu, Aged about 58 years 4 Bhagat Ram, S/o Kejau Ram, Aged about 70 years 2 to 4 R/o Village Jora, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Versus S.K. Lahra, Regional Manager, P.N.B. Farmers Welfare Trust, Punjab National Bank, Kaohhari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Colvin Barto Daniel, Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance : ’ s Shri Harshvardhan, Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay K. Agawval, Counsel for respondents. 2 Contempt Petition No. 124/2005 ‘ ORDER , , (y 39.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, ‘J. (1) The petitioners have filed this petition for initiation of the proceedings of contempt against the respondents, making allegations that they have violated the order passed by this Couit in W.P.‘ No.2932/2005 on 13.07.2005. i : Jhe order dated 13.072005 reads as under : “1 3.07.2005 Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Advocate takes notice on behaif of respondents No.1 to 3. None on behalf of respondent No.4. Counsel for the petitioners to supply extra copies of petition to learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Heard on M.W.P. No.2471 /2005 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused Annexure P-2 copy of revenue records tiled with the petition, respondent No.4 is directed not to raise any construction on Khasra No.758 which has been shown as kutcha road in the site plan tiltthe next date of hearing. In view of the above order, M.W.P. No.2471/05 & .A. No.5846l05 stand disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.” e (2) ‘ Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this order was communicated to the Regional Manager of the P.N.B. Farmers Welfare Trust, Puniab National Bank, Raipur vide telegram dated 28.07.2005 and even after receipt of the telegram, the construction was carried out. I 3 Contempt Petition No. 124/2005 (3) Thi Court had issue notices to the respondents sw cau on 28.02.2007. The respondents have flied their eply to this sho cause and have contended that the order dated 13.0Z.2005 has een complied with in its letter and spirit and no vioiation has bee cmitted. it is submitted that after allotment of the nd by the tate Government, the P.N.B Farmers Welfare Trust, Punjab National Ban, Raipur had awarded work to the Contractor, Laurie Baker Building Centre, to make construction on behalf of the Trust by n agreement date8.06.2004. Upon receipt of the order dated 13.?t2005, the Trust by its memo dated 30.07.2005 directed its Cotractor not to undertake any construction work as he order of stay wa passed. The copy of the memo dated 30.07.2005 is filed as Annexure R-2/B. The aforesaid memo was acknowledged by the Contractor on 01 08.2005 and thereafter, the construction work has ben stopped by the Contractor. They further comended that on acunt of suspension of the work, the Contractor hasclaimed damages of Rs.1,45,735/— and the Bank recommended to he President of Trust an amount of Rs.3,04,443/— towards damages for suspension of the construction work and thereafter, the said amount was paid towards the damages. (4 Learned counsel for respondents submits that in the above mnner, the order, as soon as it came to th notice of the respondents, has fully been complied with and no case for proceeding. in contempt is made out. .. (5) The petitioners have not tiled any reioinder affidavit to rebut the above contentions stated on affidavit in reply (6) We notice that in the order dated 13.07.2005 passed in WP. No.2932/2005, nobody was present on behalf of respondent No.4 i.e. P.N.B. Farmers Welfare Trust, therefore, they were not the party to the said order and as soon as they received the communication @ ‘ s d to ho se r w b n om la ES i k j a d1 0 n t s e co t ) a e 4 Contempt Petition No. 124/2005 regarding stay granted by this Court, they had complied with the order. G (7) in light of the above facts and circumstances, no case is made out for proceedings in contempt. (8) The petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. t (9‘) u “The notices to show case stand(S) diSChal'Qed- ’ "