•\^-\^.^"^-y-^ 4 ^.^- BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT. P ON (Civil) No^ /2010 Sintfe ^ '^-". ^^ (Arising out of orders dated 05.05.2010 & 21.06.2010 passed in W. A. No. 12772010 by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court consisting of Hon'ble Justice Shri I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Justice Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra) PETITIONER : ^aimun Nisha, wife of late Shri Sarajuddin Solanki, aged about 28 <^y''\^u'v years, R/o Ward No.6, Gandai, District ^ Rajnandgaon (C.G.) w ^^^' ^ .^ VERSUS ^.-' RESPONDENT : Shri K.D. Chandrakar, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gandai, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF_T_HE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. ^K HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Contempt Case (Civil) No.146/2010 Petitioner Respondent Saimun Nisha Versus Shri K. D. Chandrakar (Contempt Petition under Article 215 ofthe Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act) Present: - Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Kshitiz Sharma, counsel for respondent. ORALORDER (Passedon 25-02-2011) This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent has willfully disobeyed and flouted the interim order dated 05-05- 2010 and final order dated 21-06-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.127of2010. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had initially filed writ petition for setting aside auction proceedings of shops at B-1 Market, Nagar Panchayat, Gandai and for allotment of shop No.1 to the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed on 26-04-2010 whereafter the writ appeal was also filed, in which, an interim orderwas granted on 05-05-2010 to the effectthat status quo in respect of the possession shall be maintained by the parties till the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after the said interim order, the respondent proceeded to allot Shops No.8 to 10 to different persons as is evident from Sale deed Annexure C-4 on 15-06-2010. Thereafter, on 21-06-2010, the petition was finally disposed offwherein direction was given to the Additional Collector to dispose off the appeal pending before u him as early as possible preferably within a month. It was further ordered that the till disposal of the appeal, the shops may not be allotted to anyone. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under the interim order dated 05-05-2010, the respondent was duty bound not to make allotment of any shops and making allotment of three shops No.8 to 10 on 15-06-2010, he committed gross contempt of the interim order dated 05-05-2010. Other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though in the final order dated 21-06-2010, this Court directed that till the disposal of the appeal, the shops may not be allotted to any one which clearly mean all the shops No.1 to 14, the respondent authority did not cancel the allotment of Shop Nos.8 to 10, which were already made. In his submission, the act of the respondent throughout pendency of the case has been contemptuous and he took steps to flout the order passed by this Court by distorting the true and correct spirit ofthe Court's order. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that vide order dated 05- 05-2010 passed by this Court directed status quo in respect of the possession to be maintained by the parties. The respondents sought legal advise and after obtaining copy of the interim application, on which, status quo order was passed on 05-05-2010, he bonafidely formed an opinion that as interim application was only in respect of allotment of shop Nos. 1 to 3 and 11 to 14 of B- Market, Gandai, he did not make any allotment in respect ofthose shops and maintained status quo in respect of possession of those shops in respectful compliance of the order dated 05-05-2010. Other submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that when the Court finally disposed off the writ appeal vide order dated 21-06-2010, those three shops were already allotted on 15-06-2010, and therefore, after the order of the Court, no fresh allotment was made till the final disposal of the appeal. He submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector was finally disposed off on 03-09-2010 and between the period from /tf^ i. 15^.. y ^s^ ^ 0 ''^^ ^k^ •^ "^^2- ^sSS^ •^ ^ 21-06-2010 to 03-09-2010, no fresh allotment were made. He submits that the respondent had no intention of flouting or disobeying the order of the Court. It is reflected from this contention that after interim order dated 05-05-2010, none of the shops No.1 to 3 and 11 to 14 have been allotted and after passing ofthe final order dated 21-06-2010, no allotment whatsoever took place till the disposal of the appeal, He submits that the vide Court order dated 21-06-2010, it was directed that no allotment should be made but did not say that the allotment, which already made in the meantime, should be cancelled. It is lastly submitted that ifthe Court finds that the respondent authority has in any manner committed any act, which has the effect of undermining the Majesty of law, he submits an unconditional apology. 4. Interim order dated 05-05-2010 was passed by the Court on petitioner's application (I.A.No.1) for interim relief. In that application, the petitioner sought interim protection in respect of shops No.1 to 3 and 11 to 14. It is not disputed that these shops have not been allotted after passing of Court order dated 05-05- 2010. In the reply, the respondents have stated that he obtained copy of interim application and also sought legal advise. Therefore, in the opinion ofthis Court, it does not appear to be a case of willful disobedience of order dated 05-05-2010. 5. In the final order dated 21-06-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal, this Court intended to protect the interest of the writ appellant so that in the eventuality of he being entitledof shop, the shops may be available. This Court therefore directed that no allotment should be made till the disposal of the appeal. It was the duty of the parties particularly the respondent in the Writ Appeal, to bring to the notice of the Court that three shops No.8 to 10 have already been allotted. However, looking to the fact that after that order passed by this Court, the respondent did not make any allotment whatsoever, 1 am not \ it \r \A^ inclined to hold that the respondent is guilty of willful disobedience of the order of the Court. It is howeyer to be noted that if the respondent was aware about the order dated 21-06-2010 wherein the Court said that allotment should not be made till disposal of the appeal and the order related to all the shops, the respondent ought to have brought it to the notice of the Court by making proper application. That was not done. It appears that in the matter, the respondent did not even seek legal advise. The respondent therefore did not act in the manner, he was obliged to do. Even though, 1 do not find it to be a case of willful disobedience, the respondent ought to be vigilant and careful. However, considering that the fact that after the order dated 21-06-2010, no fresh allotment were made till the final disposal of the appeal, 1 do not deem it expedient to proceed further in the matter. The respondent is however cautioned to be careful in future in the matter of compliance of the order passed by this Court. Rule is therefore discharged. 6. In view of foregoing, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Mam.draMohanShrivastava Judge