^- ^' ^- .^'^ ^' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT ^o :.?-^ BILASPUR _^1G--;; CONTEMPT EETFRON NO.A?.^../2010 COMPLAINANT PETITIONER.y"^ ........%^fr- ":: -^y> CONTEMNERS 1. Umeshawari Bai, wifeof Deoshankar, aged about 2^-years, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Gadakata, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS Shri Surendra Kumar Jaiswal, Collector Jashpur Nager, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Shri A.R. Dhurve Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kunkuri, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (ChhattiSQarh). 3. 4. Shri S.R. Chouhan Chief Executive OfFicer Nager Panchayat Kunkuri, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). Shri G.P. Singrol Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). APPUCATION UNDER SECTION 12 READ WITH SECTION 14 OF THE CONTEMPT ACT 1971 \l^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S. B: HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. ContemptCase (Cl No. 66/2010 COMPLAINANT : Umeshwari Bai. PETLTIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Shri Surendra Kumar Jaiswal and others. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12 READ WITH SECTION 14 OF THE CONTEMPTACT.1971 Appearance: Shri J. S. Baraik, counselfor the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, counsel for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passedon 03.02.2011) This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience ofthe order dated 19th February, 2010 passed by Division Bench ofthis Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 6598 of 2008. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner. was an elected Sarpanchof Gram Panchayat Gadakata. In course of time, the State Government proceeded to constitute Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri by amalgamating existing Revenue village Gadakata and Gram Panchayat Kunkuri and an order was passed by the Collector disestablishing Gram Panchayat Gadakata on account of constitution of Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri. The constitution of Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri and disestablishing of Gram Panchayat Gadakata were challenged by the petitioner byfilinga writ petition before this Court, which was eventually allowed by the order dated 19th February, 2010 whereby the notification dated 3rd September, 2008 constituting Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri and order of the Collector -T;t; :+'^p ^if ?s.?n^'~;r p^;-^-'.-".;- ..^7S^ \v^\ disestablishing Gram Panchayat Gadakata were declared illegal and quashed. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the order dated 19 February, 2010 was passed by the Division Bench ofthis Court, the petitioner submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kunkuri (S.D.O.) for handing over the charge of the Office of Gram Panchayat Gadakata. However, the matter was kept pending by the S.D.0. and the Collector also did not takeany steps to re-establish the Gram Panchayat Gadakat nor did handover the charge of Office of Gram Panchayat Gadakata to the petitioner, which clearly constitutes willful disobedience of the>'ord'er^'6seal by'this'Courtoh-19.02.2010. He 'further submits that the respondent authorities did not take appropriate steps for handing over charge of the Office of Sarpanch of Gadakata to the petitioner nor have till date held elections for constitution of Gram Panchayat Gadakata, despite the fact that the existence of Gadakata Gram Panchayatwasjevivedbyj.udicial de.claration ofthis Cpurt. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the order that was passed by this Court and various representations made by the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was referred to the State Govemment and the State Goverriment; in the peculiarl;situation4hataby"the3time''the-'order of:this Court was already passed, the term of the petitioner has already come to an end and also with regard to the steps required to be taken as a consequence ofjudicial order, sought an opinion and finally the Law Department of the State Government has also given its legal opinion in this matter. He further submits that as thetenure ofthe'petitioner has already expired before the order of this Court was delivered, notwithstanding the revival of Gram Panchayat Gadakata, the petitioner could not claim charge ofthe Office of Gram Panchayat Gadakata. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitsthat while thewrit petition remained pending, theelectionswere 1 ' . . . ''.. held and after order of this Court, the respondent authorities would be ;J^--.::^. -,.„._...:^^ L.;-.L L'/_[! ;U f.lH..^; L;;C j;-:^. .„...!..„ -..;..^... ..,...: .:...,... taking appropriate steps for holding separate election of Panchas and ! Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gadakata. He further submits that there is '^:.../'./ ^y^^ "^.^^' \^ no order or action of respondent authorities which shows that they are still recognizing the existence of Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri or denying the existence of Gram Panchayat Gadakata. 5. Having heard rival submissions, 1 have perused the record. The order ofthis Courtwas passed on 19.02.2010 in W.P.(C) No.6598 of 2008 which reveals that the notification establishing Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri as also the order of Collector disestablishing the Gram Panchayat Gadakata were set aside. The consequence of the order passed by this Courtis that the Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri is no longer in existence in the eye of law and the existence of Gram Panchayat Gadakata stands revived. However, the submission of counsel for the respohdents is that as the term of the petitioner has already come to an end, the petitioner could not be handed over the charge of the office of Sarpanch, even after the order passed by this Court, does not appear to be lame excuse from which it can be inferred that this would constitute act of willful disobedience. On close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reyealed that before the order that was passed by this Court, elections were held, and therefore, after the order of this Court was delivered, the competent authorities, under the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, are under obligation to hold separate election for the Office of Panchas and Sarpanch of Gadakata. True it is that till date elections have not been held but only on this ground it cannot be held that there is willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Once the existence of Gram Panchayat Gadakata is revived after judicial declaration, the respondent authorities would be under obligation to take steps for holding elections for the Office of Panchas and Sarpanch of <;"<se s<>f'!}(nv ^' t"t-> ^":--; :---!.4 .-.:-.-.--.-•;•:••••;; ; •^- Gram Panchayat Gadakata. Merely because till date fresh elections have not been held, 1 am unable to accept the submission of the tearned counsel for the petitioner that this constitutes willful disobedience of the order passed bythis Court. 6. Before parting with this case, this Court would observe that even though prior to the order passed by this Court on 19th February, 2010 elections were held in respect of Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri, but after the ,^^ /t... ^ 1 "^^fci ^' M r \^b order of this Court, the respondent authorities are under obligation to take appropriate steps to hold elections in the Office of Panchas and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gadakata. 7. In view of the obsen/ation made hereinabove, 1 am of the opinion that no willful disobedience can be said to have been made out. Rule is discharged. —~ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge • >-'\,".'~u^(^?? ''^'\n h/^> •".'";'/'? •^