/"^. r^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^}\ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH c^^ AT ^S^^^iS BILASPUR (C.G.I _Q.^F CcA'V <->('_'"I Contempt Fatftfon No...^?...l./2008 (Singl^Bench) COMPLAINANTS ...2^-^ ^-^*'"" 1. Chhabinath Patel aged about 41 years S/o Late Jiyalal Patel Clerk Avdivasi Vitt Vikas Nigam Kanker (C.G.) R/o Village : Jogitarai Post: Tarkela Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Kanhaiyalal Nayak aged about 35 years S/o Shri Shyamlal Patel Clerk Avdivasi Vitt Vikas Nigam Kanker (C.G.) R/o Village : Amali Pali Post : Pentraruwa Via : Chandrapur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3, Narsingh Kishor aged about 40 years S/o Shri Harbo Singh Peon Avdivasi Vitt Vikas Nigam Kanker (C.G.) R/o Village : Darri Post: Badhod Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS CONTEMNER Shri S. D. Singh Executive Officer Jila Antyavsayee Sahkari Vikas Samitee Maryadit, Kanker Dist. Kanker (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE215 QFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 311^'?! ^iT Wi* sn^r sh+licn ^f^cf -Svl -^W\v\^, ^WId, hww^. 3n^?r iRraf? ^ Ct^^} ^tJ^ "^ 2C IIIDI »H(ch sn^i'5%iWHfN SB s Hoa'Me Sfari Maaladni MolMnStel^iUtaya, J. 9.02.2011 Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Shri Rajendra 'Mpathi, Heard. coiknsel By this contempt petiti^n; dfaobedience of fhe order dated W.PNo. 1191/01. Leamed coiuisel for 2.8.2001, this Court passedj reached and taken up, fhe| conditioas of the writ contended fhat even fhough ahd ia force, an order was petittoners fix>m service, whic}i order of the Court Leamed couosel for averments made in the rep 10.9.2008 was issued due to it came to the notice of tf IMvsW ^ fS^ <l»t«i< ^sifigiran^i for the petitioners. wunsel for the respondent. , fhe petitioners have aUegai wiUful 2.8.2001 passed by thls Court in pie petitioners submitted that on an order fhat until the matter M status quo as regards the service petijtioners shatl be maintainfid. It is ^he said interim order Uiff'continuing passed. on 10.9.2008 removmg fhe amounted to gross contempt of fhe |fhe respondent, referru% to the ]y, has stated that the order dated ]corrfusion }sy referriag to letter dated 2.9.2008 issued by Che Man^ging Director of Chhattisgarh Rajya Anlyavsayee Sahakari Vitta E^ram Vflsas N^m Maryadit, but when the respondent that wrtt petition No. 1191/01 1s still pending ccfasideration before (he Court and the mterim order dated 2.8.2001 ^s stffl operatmg in favour of fhe writ pT^^feq ^"^. /^ 1 %!s^s|lilC-22 V"sy ' sn^T'q? ^iRTsn^i %tiwgf?g Braveea -yss ^iitjic)^, ridl'y'iio, ^cii'ay IffNMI Sb*<|cb •^ an^r ^CTW ^ifid -"L- petitioners, the respondent 1.11.2008 (Annexure R-l) wifhdrawn and fhe petttioneifs immediately issued anofher order on earlier order dated 10.9.2008 was have been reuMtated. etod Learaed counsel for ttri intention on the part of fh^ order ofthe Court and he sulimits Leamed couiMel for flhfi respondent-authority bad w^ contempt peUtion. Be fhat as it may, I fini reply fhat fhere was mlstakt knowledge that petition is he proceeded to withdraw reinstated fhe petitioners. Considerir^ fhe totaUI^ made by leamed counsel tendered by hiin, I am mcUnefl The rule is therefore di; The petition is accordin +i'tiici4i-i iw(ff'?feczt <r»it$it ir •Bpgir an^T respondent submits that there was no respondent-aufhorily to disobey fhe unconditional apology. petitioners has contended ttiat fhe .thdrawn the order onfy after filmg of that the respondent has stated iu his on his part and when it caaie to his pe^iding and the iaterim order is in force, |the order passed on 10.9.2008 and offhe circumstances, the submission for the respondent and the apology to dischaxige fhe i-espondent. ^harged. ;ly flnally disposed off. J.— Sd-/ ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge f^tfE;7<