Ab\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ. Contempt Petition No. 99 of 2007 APPLICANT Rajesh Das, 8/0 Late Hari Das Aged about 42 years I Rlo Village — Baloda, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Versus Shri Vivekanand Sinha Superintendent of Police Janjgir—Champa, District Janjgir- Champa (CG) 2. Shri MR. Mandavi, Reserve Inspector, Police Line, Janjgir—Champa, District ' Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of india. NON-APPLICANTS CONTEMNERS Present : Shri Rag'nvendra Pradhan, counsel for the petitioner. ‘ ' a Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dyl AG. forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13‘“ April; 2007} The Complainant alleging that the respondents have disobeyed the interim order passed by this Court on 14—O3—2007‘,‘ has filed this contempt petition with a request to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against the respondents and punish them for so called wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court. (2) Petitioner is a Constable who was working at Baloda. He was kept under suspension by an order passed on 03-1 0-2006. ‘ln contemplation of the Departmental Enquiry proceedings, after passing the suspensidn order he was attached to the Police Station at Janjgir-Champa. (3) By order dated 15—01—2007, the non-applicant has recalled his eariier order of suspension otthe petitioner, but directed himto continue to work at Janjgir-Champa alone as a Constable. Q (4) This Court while entertaining the writ petition has directed the novi- applicant that no coercive Steps shall be taken pursuant to the order dated 1 5—01 —2007. (5) The complainant is of the view that the respondents have wilfully an eliberately disobeyed the interim order passed on 14-03—2007. r (6) A request is made to Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, learned Dyl Advocate General for the State to assist me in this case. (7) On instructions the learned counsel appearing for the State has produced before me the communication dated 1304—2007. A perusal of the said communication would positively indicate that the respondents have not taken any coercive steps against the petitioner after passing of the order dated 1 5-01 ~2007‘ (8) l am satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondents, ln that view of the matter, in my opinion the respondents have not committed any act which would call tor initiation of contempt proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act ln that view of the matter, the contempt petition is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected. Ordered accordingly. d d