whmmgwmVm3 v"PmaEwwa *Ema mm” wmwwmh Eggggmawa mm Ema. B§E§u§§~ Ev£r$$§§§n~ 9a., ME? mm. %mmmmm w. mrwhwwwgmm. m3«@mg mgwuwwrwama #w “ m m “ wmmw. «romwgwmwgwy $5.. §mwawnm autmn. 6%.? mum. w. w‘mnmmmmw £ mg-m .1. 1 ‘ qDXnrwDRQmlc hnm\mA-v: v wwwwmmy . gag DQ; mmhwan. \0 . SI . «mm? 1 S$$E . . miQwmmamwwmammQJmgEwwg mmwiwm hmwwwwwvgm“. £Q£I ?ww.rw.m.wwmw XI-HC-22 HW,WW,W 3mm mgém‘fwlwgb v‘m w: 200§ Shri S.C. Verma, learned c'ounse! for the petitioner. -‘ Heard on admission. This contempt petition. has been fiied making aliegations against, respondent no.2 Shri Jawahar Shrivastava, designated as Collector, Distt. Durg that he being in the capacity'of the Collector has violated the order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the High Cc‘urt in W.P.No.3226i2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the order dated 07.8.2004 the petitioner was transferred from Jashpur to Durg. He further submits that the petitioner joinedl at Durg on 17.9.2004. He also submits that respondent no.1 .herein name DR. Bhagat has med the. writ petition l No.3226/2004 in which an'inter order dated 28.9.2004 was passed in the i following terms: - “In the mea While, purefy as an interim measure it is directed that the sta us quo be maintained by the parties tiil the next date of hearing. Learned counsel further s bmits that status on 28.9.2004 was that the ' petitioner has alreadyjointed at urg and he was continued at Durg. Now the allegations in this contempt peti on is that on 17.12.2004, the Collector has distributed some work to writ petitioner Shri DR. Bhagat (petitioner in W.P.No.3226/04) and this petitio er as well. According to learned counsel for W WWW mma'wm ‘aawm ‘ 09.8.2005 > XI-HC—22 WWWW mm the petitioner, this amounts to cc by this court in the aforesaid w statue quo shall bemaintained by the parties tiii the next date of hearing. i have heard iearned ‘co rnse! attength and have ‘aiso perused the recordS of the wrif petition. ' in fact the order dated 2 8.9.2004 was passed in a which was chaiienged by the etrtloner of the said writ petrtroner ii! therefore be taken that the persons (writ petitioner or respondent no.3, a piicant of this contempt petition) shali not be disturbed from their respective iaces of postings tiii the next date of hearing posting shaH be maintained This does not mean that any kind of work if aildtted to them shall amount to contempt the petitioner and considering the facts and Havmg heard counsel tot opinion of this court, no case is made out for gainst the non-applicants. l do not nr’id any merit ‘rn this petition and it'is summarily dismissed without notice. "nemmng of order of status quo Sumi Kuma génha Judge » a,» matter of transfer and status quo m’reiatron to thel circumstances of the case, in the initiating contempt proceedings a Stu- ntempt of the order dated 28.9.2004 passed 'it petition by which it was directed that the mm gi 200 . . a“ u... ' ad mwa‘wm %3t%nati%¥t