^ ®nBl«B»"cb IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR ContemptCase (C) N0.323/2010 PETmONER: ^•^w ^ vs Chandra Prakash Vyas S/o Late Shri Vallabh Vyas, aged about 48 years , R/o Maa >••''' _. - . ..•••••('^^•'-""'.. - Gitanjali Nagar, Sector-1, Near -"^^~;''"~ .,•-•"' Bottle House Raipur, District Raipiu- (CG) .^f"" .c^-- ^.-•-^ ..'••''.'10 ••"'-^ RESPONDENT: (CONTEMNOR) Versus Shri C. Panaa, Managing Director, Chhatdsgarh Rajya Sahakari Bank, Raipur (CG). )NTEMFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 2150F THE ^CQNSTrTUTION OF INDIA READ WTTH SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT an^T'^l 1?;IRr3Tg?l sfrtii* :aita T -svi -svfsf^fss, ^tws. 'f^iwy SIT^T 'VC^ ....(^...^..©^;J^//0 iiriRTrwHicb 200 •fa^EC sn^i •FRiiwa)?it «bii|I<-i41-t'wmi '9 fe^t <i«]t&i< ^iaifiinsn^i SB : Hon'bie Shri manindra iViohan ghrivastava, J. 23-02-2011 ynn Awaan i npatni, counsel rof me petjtloner. inis petition nas oeen fiiep &y the petjtioner alleging v/iilful disobedience of order dated 28/3/08 pbssed in 'VV.P.i'S) No.1806708. Learnea counsel for the Detlti passea t>y me Keglsirar, Cooperativ sner submitted that the petitioners in 'W.P.f'S) No.1806/08 fiied the said pelition aggrieved by order a'ated 26/2/08 ^ Socleties by which. the petitioners' appeal was ajlowed. Learned counslei for the petitioner submitted that on 26/3/08, the Court directed status aul submits that in view of that order. the 3 witn regara to tne piacement of the petitioners, as obtained on that day, t!J> be maintained, tiil further orders. He ^espondent durin.a the pendencv of the petition, couid not have promoted thos^ writ petitioners to the next hiaher Dost ana in doing so, tne responaent nas flo !t appears thaf W.P.s'S) No.181 jted the order passed bythis Court. 16708 was filed assaiiing order dated 26/'.Z/U6 by which the Registrar, Coopetative Societies heid that the D.P.C. on v/nose recommenaaoon, tne petttionel-s of the wrlt Detition were DromQted was not propeny constjtuted. i ne petlt|oners in the sald writ petition therefore filed a writ petition before this Court, c[iaiienging the said order in which the petitioner herein was a respondent. fllPDrehending that in view of. the order passed by the Registrar, they may suff^r adverse order of reversion, the writ Ipetttioners v/ere granted a protective utnbreiia and status quo with regard to |me piacement was directed to be mairltained. Ths matter in which the said order Vi/as passed reiated to promotiorl OT me wnt petitioners to tne Dost or iDivisional Accountant.By interim order, Ithe Court intended to protect the writ tDetitioners against any action of reversi^n in the light of order passed by the IRegistrar, Cooperative Socjeties on 2B/2/08. During the pendency of ths -.T^ •^^TrS ,rt:^'s%^. T J' Sl-HC-22 -s^ •^w\vi^, ^Tfi+i'id. r°«vii'M'i< 3'n^r iTarg? G^T- Q^G (C-) t^O . 3^3, •^•1 200 IIIICTI (bllcb fq^sr' 3II^?r'qiT r<-(i.+ sn^i ?btiicti ^irt LieeptE 317^1 ^^TRR •gfitT ^- petition, tne writ petitioners nave Deei|i order dated 31/3/10 ("Annexure C/1). 'herefore, in the opinion of thi wnt petrtioners to tne next nigner DOSTI tne oraer ot this Court or act comemptuous. i ao not tina accoraingiy dlsmissed. promotea to tne next nianer oost viae t i;ourt, tne oraer or promotion OT tnose |cannot be said to be an attempt to fiout Imanner, wnrcn cani—;De saia 10 De inent in inis petition. i ne petitson is_ __ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge CM'4f<n41i HJ^df'^ f^t<i1 <Hi(-^i< ^? aipgii sn^T f-ftA ?fm