S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 424/2008 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2482/2007 (Kailash Chand Sharma Versus Shri Ishwar Singh & Others) Date of Order :: 16th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Hem Singh Rathore for the petitioner Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has preferred this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for non compliance of the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2007 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2482/2007, which reads as under: “The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer to direct the respondents to pay amount of Rs.4 lacs which he has spent for the development works in Gram Panchayat Sudar Pura, Dhada, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur. It is argued that earlier, the respondents have initiated certain recovery proceedings against the petitioner but because of the order passed by this Court in this writ petition, such proceedings were later dropped. Petitioner has claimed that amount which he has spent from his own fund has not been so far reimbursed/paid by the respondent- Department. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents for recovery of the -2- amount which the petitioner is said to have spent on his own. Instead of entertaining such writ petition directly, I set the petitioner at liberty to make a representation to the Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development, Secretariat, Jaipur and in that event, such representation shall be decided in accordance with law. If the amount still is not paid, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a civil suit for recovery of the amount. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.” 3. The petitioner has mentioned in the contempt petition that he submitted a representation to Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur on 15th December, 2007, which has not been decided so far. A copy of the representation has been annexed as Annexure-2 with the contempt petition. A perusal of the representation will show that petitioner has not referred anything about order dated 31st August, 2007 passed by this Court. It is also not clear that copy of the order passed by this Court was annexed with the representation. A copy of the receipt showing delivery of copy of the order dated 31st August, 2007 has not been placed on record. In these circumstances, it is not clear and proved that petitioner served a copy of the order passed by this Court on the Divisional Commissioner. It is also relevant to -3- mention that no time was fixed for deciding the representation by this Court, rather it was observed that in case the amount still is not paid, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a civil suit for recovery of the amount. The contempt petition further shows that a representation was filed to Divisional Commissioner, whereas the Divisional Commissioner has not been impleaded as contemnor-respondent. The petitioner has impleaded the Block Development Officer, Sarpanch and Panchyat Secretary as contemnor respondents, who were not required to decide the representation. The petitioner did not give any notice to the so-called contemnor before filing the present contempt petition. 4. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this contempt petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR Jain),J. DK