S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.301/2007 Patram Godara Vs. Mugdha Sinha Date of Order :: 24.3.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, for the petitioner. ... In SBCivil Writ Petition No.5642/2007 this Court on 7.9.2007 passed an order as follows: “In view of the decisions of this Court aforesaid and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the preface of the impugned order dated 31.7.2007, as notices above, the matter does require consideration. Hence, issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 25.9.2007. In the meanwhile and until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 31.07.2007 (Annex.P/1) shall remain stayed qua the petitioner. It is pointed out that Collector concerned, after passing the interim orders in relation to the other Patwaries who were transferred by the same impugned order dated 31.07.2007 has proceeded to place the petitioner under awaiting posting order by issuing another order on 30.08.2007(Annex.2). The said order dated 30.08.2007 having been issued only as a consequence of the interim orders passed by this Court in other writ petitions; and when the similar interim order has now been made qua the petitioner too, it goes without saying that the said order dated 30.08.2007 shall be treated as redundant qua the petitioner, and otherwise the Collector concerned shall be free to pass appropriate orders in relation to the posting of the petitioner.” :: 2 :: The Collector (Land Records) by the order dated 12.9.2007 transferred the petitioner from 19 STG, Tehsil Hanumangarh to Daulatpura. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 12.9.2007 is in violation of the directions given by this Court on 7.9.2007. From perusal of the order dated 7.9.2007 it appears that the Court left it open for the Collector concerned to pass appropriate orders in relation to the posting of the petitioner. The Collector passed the order dated 12.9.2007 by considering himself at liberty to pass fresh orders of transfer, as such, the appropriate course before the petitioner was to submit a representation to the Collector pointing out intention of the Court under the order dated 7.9.2007 or to seek clarification from the court itself. The counsel for the petitioner is desirous to file an application for clarification. . Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal