IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH C v AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Contempt Case (C) No./.l/^..../2010 (Single Bench Contempt Matter) c- u' ^" Beisdi (^ COMPLAINANTS (PETITIONERS) ><3 >y-x^ •^y'-'^c^^,v( •Oi/'/ ^l ^ w ^-:-^.--::: ...•4'\j-s/^\^' < ' ^"' 2. ..o' SANAT SHARMA aged about 44 years S/o Late 9m Shiv Ki-imar Sharma (B.Com. and Typist Hindi) Assistant Grade 3 ARUNSHARMA aged about 49 years S/o Shri B. M. Sharma (M.Com., B.Ed., L.L.B.) Assistant Grade 3 3. YESHWANTKADVE aged about 43 years S/o Shri Digambar Kadve (Higher Secondary and Computer Typist) Assistant Grade 3 4. SmtDULARICHANDRAKAR aged about 45 years W/o Ramkrishna Chandrakar (M.A. and Typist) Assistant Grade 3 All petitioners posted in Office of Development Commissioner Panchayat & Rural DevelopmentDq?tt. Civil Lines, Vikas Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ CONTEMNERS fRESPONDENTS) 1 ,^^\ ^i^ywi im' ^€" •1^>«».~-<; •^y^t^ ;^ 1. SHRI NARAYAN SINGH Secretary Forest Department Govt. of Chhattisgarh Secretariat D.K.S. Bhawan,G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) 2. SHRI R. K. SHARMA Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Govt. of Chhattisgarh Aranya Bhawan, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. SHRI B.K. SINHA Chief Conservator of Forest Govt. of Chhattisgarh Aranya Bhawan, Jail Road, Raipur(C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA E^^^' HIOH CSOORT OT CHII^r^BQARH g BHASPim S.B.s Hontble Qhti Manindra Mohan Sliriwuitawit J. Contemot Case (Cl No.176/2010 COMPLAmANTS Petitioaers Sanat Sharma & Ors. Vefsua Shai Narayan Sit^ti 8& C^s. CONTBBINOR8 Responden'ts Contemot Petltion U/A215 oftlie Coaatttutloa ofladli Present:- Shri V.G. Tamaskar, counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, counsel forTespondents.. ORAL OROIBIl 4I>aw®donl2^July,2011) Heard. 1. This petition has been ffled by Itoe petitiaaeFS aUe^tag wiaflA^ disobedience ofthe order dated 17^ MaTGfa, 2010 passed in W.P. , (S) No.4107/09 (Annexurc C- 2). 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted tliat fcy fhe aforesaid order, the writ petltlon of the petitioners was allowed, holding that (he petitioners could not be sent to savy other department without fheir consent. He ftirther subxaits tliat fhis Court vide its order dated 171b Marcti, 2010, declared fhat peldtioners are entitied to continue on thie post of Assistant Grade-m in fhe Forest Departmetn. Thereafter,on 13.4.2010,oa' note-sheets, itwas directed (hat fhe servicesoftliepetttdoQers Ite \ sent back to ftieir parent department in coaipliaxice ofthe order ^^v^ ^A.A ^' ^.,,,,^FI%^, 1 '-wsy^ i y i ..^" ofthe Court and, ftiereafter, on 23td April, 2010 (Aimexiire 0-4), the Department of Panchayat aaid Kural Development communicated to ttie Department of Porest to issue posting order of fhe petitioners so that fhey can be relleved. Leffl'ned counsel for the petitioners submits fhat tbereafter, n.0 steps are beiiig taken to glve the petitioners posting on the post of Asst. Grade-III ta fhe Forest Department. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits fhat order of tfoe Q)urt required fhe respondents to issue order of postog of tfae petitioners in the Forest Department and (heir relMng ft-om the office of Development Commissioner, but, till date, the order tsas not been compUed wifh by fhe respondents, wNch shows utter disregard of fhe order and proceedings of ttie O^urt and fhe respondents are Uable for punishment for wIUful disotoedience of the order of the Court. 4.0n the ofher hand, leamed comisel appearmg for fhe respondents submitted that tfae order passed on 17th Mareli, 2010 inW.P. (S) No.4107/09 has been deferred. He submits fhat this act of respondents is not an act of flouttng or disobeyiiig fhe order of the Court, but, since a writ appeal has b^n filed, therefore, fhe order of fhe Coiirt has not been complied wifh and the respondents have highest regard for (he order offhls Court. He also submits that in case it is found fhat any order of fhls Court has been violated, respondents submit fheir unconditioxial apolo^. 5. The writ petltion filed by the petitioners was aMowed vide order dated 17^ March, 2010 passed in W.P. (S)No.4107/09. The order of the Court clearfy shows that it has been found fhat transfer of ftie petitioners froip Forest Departnaent to fhe office of Development Commissioner in the Degartment of PaxicbaEyat i and Rural Development was without fheir consent. The wrtt i petition was thferefore aUowed and fhis Court clearly held fhat petitioners are entifled to continue on flie post ofAsst. Grade-ni , in ftie Forest Department. This Court also gave liberty to respondents-aufhority to take appropriate steps, tf so advised, tn accordance with law. True it is that a wrlt appeal has been preferred against order dated 17th March, 2010, however, (be leamed counsel for fhe respondents could not dispute tbe foct that in the writ appeal, no interim order, staying effect, x operaflon or execution of order dated 17th March 2010 has been passed. Merefy because a writ appeal has been ffled, it does Qot absolve the respondents of fheir obli^tion to compfy wifh the order of fhe Court Except fhis, no other reason has been assigned by fhe respondents in fheir reply. This approach of fhe respondents, to say fhe least, 1s not at all proper. It has to be i noted that mere filing of appeal or revision does not operate as j stay and as long as, fhe order of fhe Court is in force, it is required to be ccanplied with. Therefiarc, to my mind, fhe j respondents have committed disobedience of fhe order passed by this Court on 17tfa March, 2010. However, considering that j the reasons assigned for non-compliance of fhe order is pendency ofwrit appeal, I would not hold fhe respondents guUly of contempt because it appears to be a case of non-compliance on fhe ground of pendency of wrlt appeal. However, eironeous the action of (he respondents may be, on ttie submission so made by leamed counsel for ftie respondeats and the^repty, ia fhe opfcnion of this Court, one opportunity may be gplven tb respondents to taike appropriate steps for compliaiice of ttoe order ofthe Court. Therefore, having held fhat mere pendency of writ appeal does not operate as stay of fhe operatlon and execution of order 6f the Court, it is npw obligatory on ffae part of respondCTits to compty with fhe order of the Court passed on 17thMarch,20lO. 6. Respondents shaU forthwifh issue order of postixig of (tie petitioners in fhe Forest Departmenton fhe post ofAsst (^ade - ni as ordered by fhis Goiirt earlier. It is made clear tihat tf'cwdeT® are not issued immediately by the respondents, fhe respondents shall be liable for stem action for wiUful disobedience of flie order offhe Court. Let necessary orders be now passed positivety withm a period of 3 weeks from fhe date ofreceipt of copy offhis order. 7. Wifh fhe aforesaid observations, fhe petition is finafly disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge PTffveen