^ f-, HIGHCOURTOF eHHATTISGARH^BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLESHRIjySTICESUNILKUMARSINHA CONTEMPTCASE (Civil} N0.161/2009 PETiTIONER^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^,^^^^^^^^ l^ Np.1 througti Shri JagdisR F'rasad Agrawal, S/o^Ambulal Agrawa), Aged about 66 years, Ffolder of'Rower of Attorney on behalf of proprietor, Anil Kumar Agrawal, S/a Radheshyam Agrawal, P.0. Neora, Distt. Raipur MERSUS :. • - RESPONDENTS 1. Srnt. ^ Sheshkumarj Banchor, President, Knshi Upaj Mandi Samiti; Neora; Eistf. Raipur (C.GJ 2. Shri S.B. Mitra.The Secretary, Krishj Upaj Mandi' Samiti Nebra, Djstt. Raipur(C.G^ CONTEMPTPETitlONUNDER^ARTI<SI-E2l56FTHECONSTITUtlON •;@PlN!3l»^M'^:':^ ADDearance: -. .;:' ' ' : ::; •^ 1,". •.l'.:: ;: : :: . ,18r. RsR.^Patankar.lAdvpcateforthepetitioner. MK R^N.;MukheHee/Adv6catefertheresponde^^^^^ ORALORDER (2Q.10.201Q5 SUNIL KUMARSlNHA.J. Heardfinallywithth&consentoflearhecieoynsel'fcirthepartieS. The petitioner^hasfilecttliis?petitionfQrtnitiationofpFoceedingsof contempt agamst the^respondents for^M dated 12^)4.2001 pass^.inW.P.No. 495/2001. This Court while "entertaining the said writ petition passed the followingordersOn 12.04.2001:- "PetitionerbyShriP.Diwaker,Advocate. Heard. . : ••'• . ;::' '\'::"::;^ ^ : ;', . : • '':; • issue notice to the respondents, returnabie within fbur weeks. P.F. and copies within 5 tfays. . Until further orders impugned orders dated 13.01 .2001 (P/11) and ~ 14.01,2001^P/12)shaliremainsuspencted: Conseqliently, the petitioner sha\\ be allowed to carry out his business. ;;. '•.;, ^:: •''; ;::; ' '• . •"- /'.- •' : • • • : - '' ^v •;,"r^:,.Certifiedcopy,today" '••••'":, •'•'^ : .:' ;... ,, • '„ fcr^4 Bl t-1 :.?- •Svu ,^ ^i^ BS IR'8 w. ,A CONTEMPT CASEtCivillNO.161/2009 Mr. P.R. Patankar, leamed'counsel forthe petitioner.submits that as aneffectof theinterim orderdated 12.04.2001, tllepetitionercontinued his business till theyear20Q9. Healsosubmitsthatafter2001,ttie license ofthepetitionerwasnotrenewed.whichwaschallengedbeforethisCourt andthe aboveorderwas passed,therefore,not allowing the petitionerto carry on business after 2009 was a disobedience of the order passed by thisCourt. • : Mr.R.N. Mukherjee, learned counselforthe respondents, referring to para 2 of the repiy, submits that even if it is assumed that the appliGation for license was not eonsidered by the Marketing Committee and under the deem proYision, the petitibner was entitled to continue the business'till 2006 i.e. periodof 5 years;then after month of March, 2006, the petitioner would be treated to have no lieenseto earry on business, therefbre, the above actioff ofthe respQndents in the year 2009 was hot disobedience of the order passed by the Court. Adrriittedly, ifthe license would have been granted in favour ofthe petitioner in usual course; itwould haveexpired after statutory period of5 years, whieK would have come to end in the rn^^ Therefore,th®lifeoftheinterimordergrantedon12,04.2001 canhotbe to!dtob6beYond'MareK;2006andihesaidordercannotbeinterpretedi^ themannec that the petitioner shall be altowed to carry on business to the 'pww^aS-infinitum. ' ' ,•, , It isstated at barthatthe writFietition it?elfhaffbeen disposedofon 13.08.2010.:, ...:-;;' In view df tha fad that tHe petitioner continued in bysiness on the strength of said prder tili the year 2009, particularly when the statutory pericd of the license is normaliy 5 yeare as stated by leamed counsel fbr the respondents, 1 do not flnd any good ground for initiation of procee^lings of contempt against the respondents when they have stopped the petitioner from carrying its business vide memo dated 28.02.2009. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is liable to be dismissed andishereby dismissed. ,.- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rahu! "s 'M s:1.. -'A" /^ .'\-. ''siBI