\f 7 •^MiSs^, &1^@1©@€^'?¥ BEFORE THE HQN'BLEH!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^-&(L<^ CONTEMPT TITIO^ N0. ^UJ> /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS (CONTEMNORS ) ^'...•^ ^l^' ^.- ..-"...•••-Cv ...<" ,^9' '" o ^' N.R. GARUD S/o D.R. GARUD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0 RADHASWAMI SATSANG BHAVAN, KALINAGAR, PANDRI, RAIPUR, TAHSIL AND DlSTRICt RAIPUR (C.G.) VERSUS VlVEK DHAND, DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER AND CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT 8s GRAMIN VIKAS, DKS BHAWAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) H.P. KlNDO, ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT 8& GRAMIN VIKAS, DKS BHAWAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) M.L. HALDKAR, CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, CHHATTISGARH, DKS BHAWAN, RAIPUR (C.G.). APPLICATION FOR INITIAnON OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA p 3TI^?T ^RT'RFVJSF 'cW 3?1^[ $ii*jict» •^•"<- *11*1CTI '7ST ^I^Krl^f, ^Tll-M<l(o, f®l<rtl'IH^< ..^aO......&^...Q.^^°V/' (n*ii<(» ••^200 ^n^r x^q^ (^citsq<i?r) iFRnw^rf?n3??^T <^l^I<vl<ill 'RTR^if ^f fe^ 'tf^R^R ^3TRW37I^r lahi SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahindra Mohan Shrivastava 21.J 1,2011 1 Mr. Anumeh Shrivastavaj, Counsei forthe petitioner. Heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioner ajieging willful disobedience of the orcjer dated 10th of January 2011 passed bythis Court inW.A. N|o.572/2010. Learned counsei for thej petitioner submits that though the Court had directed the resjpondent authorities to consider the fresh representation of th^ petitioner against his transfer sympathetically ^nd decide it ^xpeditiously in accordance with iaw, but the matter has remapned pending without any final decision and instead, the pe|titioner is being compelled to appear before the Medical Bo^rd, to which, the petitioner has refused. He submits that th4 Court had only directed for consideration of the repres^ntation of the petitioner on sympathetic grounds and th^rewas no direction that the petitioner shall appear for e)|fcamination before the Medicat Board, therefore, the medic^l certificate submitted earlier ought to have been treated vjalid and the decision ought to T,^5FTt^Tra—-FS/140—2/20t 1—1,50,000. ^. XI-HC—78 W^T^T^Jcb ^f8TT 3TT^?T sn^icb T ^^ -3^T ^|'4KV)-q, ^Tl1<!-l^<o, f5RTOy ^^.Ce^.:.....^.£.}'-:...Li^l^ Nl^dl ob^lcb •^/"r"""--- SM^-"^-^"7--^l^oy 371^1 TT^T ((i^^fl)i<\^) '^<TTWHf?TT 3n^T ^ The has °r»i^t<rt<i)<i'HFT^if ^* 'feT^ <F3i^l< '^^Rwa>T7^?i have been taken on the repr^sentation, which has not been done in this case. placed on record the petitioner communications, order she^ts as aiso summary dated 21.07.2011. It is reflected thaij after the order was passed by the Court, the petitioner had As the genuineness of the petitioner on medical grounds vide memo dated 28.07.201 petitioner to appear for his Board. The petitioner, howev| ^ubmitted a medicai certificate. document and claim of the |were doubted, respondent No.3 (Annexure P/5), directed the Ixamination before the Medical ^r, maintained that he could not the Court with regard to the| summary dated 21.07.2011f Ire the Medica! Board as there be compelled to appear befcjr was no specific direction by th^ Court. in the opinion of this Cc|urt, the contention that such act on the part of the responde^ts would tantamount to willful disobedience of the Court orcjer, cannot be accepted. Neither the Court said anything with r^gard to the manner inwhich the decision shall be taken nor th^re was any specific direction by decision making process. The also shows that since the petitioner has not appearejj for examination before the Medical Board, the matter dould not be decided.^ The said +- T L— 3?n^r ^T ^jch WT3iT^ST st»*ii<»» ^^ r^i<Lii<n^ ^Ti1^4i<o, [®Kni<H^< *11*<<11 ^»11^» ..^;.©.....^^y// 3?n^r'<T?w (^i^^r) ^RTWC^Rf^T 3T?^T summary aiso shows that the| petitioner's ciaim subject to hi^ Board. contention of learned counsel oM<<f<yi<ftTi ^w^i ^ k^<\ <rai<^i< ^3tRpT3TT^T respondents may consider the appearance before the Medicai in that view of the mat|ter, 1 am unable to accept the for the petitioner that there has been willful disobedience of tlhe order of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub^nitted that the respondents, in any case i.e. whether the Medical Board or not, be direcl or the other, as per the order o| petitioner appears before the ;edto take decision on one way rtheCourt. Taking into consideratioti the submissions advanced by iearned counsel for the petil respondents shal! proceed 1 representation whether or no' the Medical Board. In view of the above, th^ of. lioner, it is observed that the ^ take final decision on the the petitioner appears before petition stands finaliy disposed Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge ^m^N ^t? ^uii^, u^Thni^—FS/i40—2/20<i—i,50,000.