<~^, c^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR.H AT BILASPUjl aA ^^,, si"9l8 Benel CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. 2.53 OF 2011. - "*• - --—=- APPLICANT Onkar Singh Sahu, S/o. Shri Uday Ram Sahu, aged about 49 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Duglipara, Block Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS CONTBMNORS ^TT ;1. D. R. Bhagat, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Deepak Anandikar, Block Education Offlcer, Nagri, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) C^NTEMPTCASE (C) UNDERARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READWITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT y ^ The applicant named above begs to submit as under: ./-/ •^sf ^qrqMq, 'Sxri^PTS, fsRirey - C^'^(c')^^Q/Zy\ | 206 wnsn^ignite gn^l !R<S (ipiy^, aBmfeTiih wrcS 4 -feiar ri^CTfi' ^; atR"']'sn^r SB : Hon'ble Shri ManindraWlohan Shrivastava. J. . 02-11-2011 None for the petitioner, even in Shri Akhilesh Kutnar, counsel fi|>r the respondents. Heard. This petition has been filed disobedience of order dated 05-1 W.P.(S)No.4582of2010. The case of the petitioner, aggrieved by order of transfer dated 1 petitioner, whoat that point of time, the second round. order dated 05-10-2010, in batch of ^etitions including the petition filed by the petitioner, final order was pass|ed, andthe order of transfer was quashed by the Court. However, with{)ut passing a fresh order of transfer, the respondent No.2 issuedorder d^ted 16-08-2011 on the instructions, relieving the petitioner on the basis of|thesame orcjerof transfer which was quashed by the Court. The said orcj^r has been issued on the basis of instructions dated 11-08-2011 issued ljiytherespondentNo.1. Learned counsel for respond^ntssubmits that the transfer orders were quashed by the Court holdjng th^t it is in violation ofdrcular dated 05- 06-2010and Rule 8 (vi) ofthe Censu^ Rules, 1990. Hesubmits that as the circular prohibited transfer without coilsent till 31-03-2011 in compliance of (ransfer was effected, but thereafter, Learned counsel for the respondents cancelled, could not be given effect the order passed by this Court, no orders have been passed for relieving fairly admits that the order.which wa to, unless a fresh order was passed a(id when thisaspect was noted by the respondents, now an order has beenjiassed on 05-09-2011 & 06-09-2011, by which, earlier order dated 11-0 by the petitioners alleging willful P-2010 passed by this Court in ^s pleaded in the petition, is that 5-07-2010, a petition was filed by the was engaged in census work. Vide i-2011 and 16-08-2011 have been WHBR ?NN jjiiuiii-iii, troiUmg—ys/140—2/2011—i,50,ooo. ./^ 1ii y / •%,.-.-'".<"' Y, a^'wfei^ 'tTOan^i'a^iR; IP TumarB -:fS( ^nrqRTO, 'gTTJTTiT®^TsRTCTy an^l <^% ('yf1!^'' 'RmwwtasiAa -2-- "^ 200 •firafeT'ft1? -eFiHf if feiar •'fsi^i): ^? s:fvi an^i cancelled. He submits that the mistak^ occurred due to misconstruction of order of the Court, but there vas no int^ntion to tout the order of the Court, whteh is reflected the fact that the petftioner was not disturbed till 31-03- 2011. Once an order of transfer ^jras quashed by this Court, the respondents had no authority to gh/e efect to the said order in any manner whatsoever. From the reply and the docjuments, which have been placed on recoid, it appeare that the r^pondent^ construKl the order of the Court to mean that till 31-03-2011, no transfer c^iuld take place. As thetransfer order dated 15-07-2010 was quashed on W^ ground that it was in violation of Sub-rute (vi) of Rule 8 ofthe Census Rples, 1990 and Ciroular dated 05-06- 2010, the order could nct be presse<) into service. Though, after 31-03- 2011, requirement to seek consent did hot exist, the proper couree of action would have been to pass a fresh ordertatherthan passing orda' of relieving by giving efFect to, which has b^n|set aside t^ this Ctourt. Care and cautton is expected from the respondelrts in the matter of compliance ofthe Court's order. Consklering that the relievirfg order itsetf was issued after 31-03-2011 and further that the reliev^ig ordere have now been cancelled by the respondents, contempt procee(fings drawn against the respondents are dropped, however, with a vrarning Rule istherefore discharged. The petitton is finally dispos«l<tff. - —.-L_. not to repeat such conduct in future. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivasta Judge va sireTtW ^ftiT gsiiRRT, irasrti!?rt3—l'S/140—2/20II—1, S0,00fi. ^