\. .•^•-•"^^^ :«^;<:-;•'.":' ^ ^^w'<'t-^. ^ e HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA PETITIONER CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) N0. 32/2010 Saiyyad Zulfequal Ali, Son of Late Basharat Ali, aged about 43 years, Resident of Masanganj, Bilaspur (C.G.). RESPQNDENTS Versus 1 Abdul Latif Son of Late Abdul Rauf, aged about 53 yeas, R/o Masanganj, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 Kasim Son of Yasin Kabadi, aged about 32 years, Resident of Near Walraj Petrol Pump, Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 Ittefaque Sagri Son of Late Wali Mohammed, aged ^ about 53 years, Resident of Near Walraj Petrol Pump, Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 Sarwar Son of Saleh Mohammed, aged about 58 years, Resident of Masanganj, Biaspur (C.G.). 5. Wasim Son of Sanvar, aged about 29 years, Resident of Masanganj, Bilaspur (C.G.). 6. Tayyab Hussain Son of Akhter Hussain, aged about 32 years, Resident of Near Mahila Thana, Masanganj, Bilaspur (C.G.). 7. Mr. Goverdhan Singh Son of not known, aged about 43 years, Additional Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur (C.G.). 8. Mr. C.L. Singh Son of not known, aged about 52 years, Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT Appearance: Mr. A.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sarfaraj Khan, Advocate for respondent No.l. ^^^^ /^-''^. •^''^^^ ^ 2 CQNTEMPT CASE LCIVIL) N0, 32/2010 / ORDER (06.09.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA^J, (1) In Civil Revision No. 17/2009 following interim order was passed from the Bench ofHon'ble Shri N.K. Agrawal, J on 09.12.2009:- "Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Counsel for the applicants. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent No.l. Shri G.S. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri K.R. Nair, Counsel for respondents No. 2 85 3. Shri K.A. Ansari, Senior Advocate with Shri A.S. Ansari, Counsel for respondents No. 6 to 9. Heard on admission. The revision is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, list the matter for flnal hearing in the 3rd week ofJanuary, 2010. Meanwhile, except boring, further construction by respondents over suit property shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules.?? Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge (2) The petitioner herein was revision petitioner no-1 and respondent No.l herein was respondent No.4 in the revision petition. This contempt petition has been flled for violation ofthe order dated 09.12.2009 saying that after passing of the said order, respondent No.l herein and his associates started illegal construction on the suit land on 29.01.2010 at about 10:30-11:OOA.M. (3) Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that since the respondents started raising construction over the suit land on 29.01.2010, therefore, the order dated 09.12.2009 was violated. pt%, CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) N0. 32/20 10 ^' ^ c'. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Sarfaraj Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.l, referring to the document (Annexure-C-3) filed by the pedtioner, argued that, the entire application is false and baseless, therefore, the contempt petition should be dismissed. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, I have perused the records. (6) A perusal of the document (Annexure-C-3) would show that this is a report dated 20.01.2010 made by the petitioner to the Station House Officer of the concerned police Station. In the said report, it has been mentioned that the alleged construction is being carried out in violation of the order of the High Court in Masanganj Masjid, therefore, necessary action may be taken against Abdul Latif (respondent No.l herein). In the pleadings, it has been mentioned that the illegal construction was being raised on 29.01.2010 at about 10:30-11:00 A.M, then how there can be a report of the same on 20.01.2010. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent violated the order dated 09.12.2009 by raising certain construction on 20.01.10, therefore, the above application dated 20.01.2010 (Annexure-C-3) to the Station House Offlcer^ falsifles the stand taken by the petitioner in the contempt petition and in the above manner the allegations relating to violation of the order dated 09.12.2009 appears to be false on the face of the document filed by the petitioner himself. (7) During the course of argument, it was informed by the counsel for the parties that the revision petition was dismissed for want of / CONTEMPT CASE rCIVILl N0. 32/2010 ^ prosecution on 26.08.2011 and an application for restoration has been filed but the same has not been restored till date. (8) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any good ground to proceed further in the matter. (9) The contempt petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The rule issued against respondent No.l stands discharged. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge IMl^UL