v^w IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. AT - BILASPVR (C. G.) CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) N0. 5-2- OF 2011 'S-i-^KSt iaS^'n^S VeVs^''"'" ^^'u?-'^;^''-^ ^•LiS"^ PETITIONER y^'/y^ ^>y^^ .^•" ^'' ^y^ %<^° ..•< ^ CONTEMNORS / RESPONDENTS ^ttlss/^ SAHAS RAM SAHU, AGED - 58 YEARS ^ SON OF LALLU RAM SAHU R/0 BALAR ROAD, KASDOL, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) <.. VERSUS 1. SMT. JANKI BAI MANIKPURI, PRESIDENT, NAGAR PANCHAYAT, KASDOL, DISTRIC-I^RAIPUR (C. G.) 2. SHRI INDRESHWAR SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER, NAGAR PANCHAYAT, KASDOL, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) . CONTMPT CASE UNDER SECTION - 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF THE !$\ COURTS ACT. 1971 READ WITH ARTILCE - 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. mOH <30URT OF CHHATTISG^ARH : SELKSPVS. S.B^ : HOWBLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Contempt Case (Civlll No.S2/201l PETmON^i: IIESPONDENTS Sahas Ram Sahu Versus Smt. Jariki Bal Marukpuri and anofher Contempt Case u/S 12 ofthe Contempt ofthe Courts Act, 1971 r/wArticle 215 ofthe ConstituUon oftodla Appearance: Mr. R.K. Kesharwam, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Y.C. Sharma wifh Ms. Morisha Chattri, oounsel for the respondents. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 20.09.2011) Heard. \ 'l/ 2. Reply on tehatf ofrespondent No.2 has been filed. 3. From the reply, which has been filed ty respondent No.2 and the dociiments which have been placed on record, it is revealed that after the order of the Court was passed, fhe Chief Municipal ofiBcer, Nagar Panchayat, Kasdol, placed fhe matter before the President of the Nagar Panchayatt for payment of certain amount to the petitioner. The note-sheets which have EKPr IBii': -2- been placed on record show that (he matter was placed before respondent No.l on 16.10.2010 and respondent No.l directed the matter to be placed before the CouncU in its meeting and thereafter, fhe matter was placed before the Cotmdl in its meeting on 23.11.2010, m which on agenda No. 10, tfae Coundl resolved not to make payment to fhe petitioner and take legal opuuon. <.. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1 was directed by this Court to consider fhe represCTitation of fhe petitioner aad pass appropriate order wifhin a period af 8 weeks from fhe date of receipt of (he representatiaa. He submits that fhere has been no full compliance of fhe orda- aS fhe Court in fhe sense fhat speci&c order was not issued by respondent No.l and respondent No.l only on fhe note-sheet directed fhe matter to be placed before the Qeneral Body of the Council, whlch resolved on 23. 11.2010 not to malse payment at present, but to seek legal opinion. He submits fhat even If tfals was a decision taken, spectBc order should have been passed by respondent No.l and ty not passiiig specifle order, respondent No. 1 has commltted contempt. It is also submitted that-the order offhe Court was passed on 19th July, 2010 and copy of the same was submitted bcfore fhe Chief Municipal Officer on 5.10.2010. Therefore, fhe order should have been passed wifhin a period of8 weeks, but, tiU 5tt December, 2010, no speciBc drderwas passed or cominunicated to the petitioner. .f -3- 5. From the reply of respondent No.2 and the documents flled therewith, it appears that afber the representation of flie petitioner and the order of fhe Court was received by the Chief Mimlcipal Officer on 5.10.2010, fhe Chief Mimicipal Officer examined fhe claim ofthe petitioner and.directed (he bills to be prepared on 14.10.2010 proposmg payment ofRs.2,18,825/- to fhe petitioner. The matter was placed before respondent No. 1/Presidnet of Nagar Panchayat on 16.10.2010 and <HI that date itself, the respandent/President, Nagar Panchayat directed the matter to be placed before the General Body of fhe Nagar Panchayat. On 23.11.2010, General Body of the N^ar Panchayat resolved not to make paymeats at that stage and to take legal opinion and other action. Thereafter, fhe matter was placed for legal optaion, in which, the counsel has optaed that if any amount is found due and payable to the petitianer as per the rules, fhat may be released. On 13.12.2010, fhe President has written on note-sheet that as and when fhe funds are available, fhe payment shallbe made. 6. Frbm (he aforesaid documents, note-sheets, it appears fhat fhe decision in the case of the petitioner hes been taken in fhe resolution on 23.11.2010. Thereafter, the legal opimon was sought and fhen the Presidait in the note-sheet has ordered that as and when funds are available payment would be made to the petitioner. .f -4- 7. In Che opinion of ttais Coiirt, the steps, which have been taken by the respondents, show fhat they have acted towards compliance of the order of fhe Court and it cannot be said that they have acted in willflil disobedience or defiance of fhe Court's order. Submission of leamed counsel for the petitioner that no speci&e order has been psissed, by itself, would not amount to wiUful disobedience of the Court's arder. F*rom fhe note-sheets, it is seen that<fhe dedsion in the case of pettlonCT has been taken by (he President offhe Nagar Panchayat on two occasions, firstly - when the proposal was made, fhe President directed fhe matter to be placed before the GenCTal Body of the Council and secondty- on 13.12.2010, when fhe President directed that that the payment woiild be made at the time of avaUabilily of fhe fund. In the opinion of fhis Court, fhis amounts to compliance of fhe Court's direction even if specific order to that effect has not been issued by the Ppesident It would have been better that fhe petitioner would have been inforaaed of this decision by spedfic order to be Issued by the ChlefMunicipal Officer. 8. Learried counsel for the respondents submits that speci&c letter to ttiis efiFect would be issued to fhe petitioner. It is also submitted that since fhe President has already ordered (hat fhe payments would be made upon availabilily of the funds, whatever amount is due and payable, would also be paid to the petitioner. ' -5- Fraveen 9. In that view of fhe matter, I am not incUned to proceed further tn fhe m.atter. 10. The nile is fherefore dlschai^ed. 11. In case fhe petitioner is a^rieved by fhe decision or delay in makuig fhe payments, he would be at Uberly to take recourae to such remedy as may be avaflable to him under the law. <^ 12. With fhe aforesald obsenrations, fhe petition is fmally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava .f