HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE N0. 42 OF 2006 PETITIONERS 1 Ku. A. Indira daughter of Shri A. Venkat Rao, aged about 35 years, 2 Manohar Jethani, son of Late Dr. Variyal Das Jethani, aged about 40 years, Appellants 1 & 2 both residents of Ganeshram Nagar, Baan's Tall, Raipur (C.G). 3. Santosh Kumar Mishra, s/o Late R.C. Mishra, aged about 38 years, resident of Nandi Chowk, T.ikarapara, Raipur (C.G). Vs. RESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS B.K.S. Ray, Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G). - Deleted ds per the Court order dated 03.05.2007. Kanwal Preet Singh, Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Office, Malviya Road, Raipur (C.G). Jitendra Sheila, Municipal Corporation Office, Malviya Road, Raipur (C.G) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER^ECTION 12 QF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1973 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA APPEARANCE: Mr. Virendra Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondents 2 8s 3. ORAL ORDER (19.11.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. .A-sa.1 !,%!•("'! Contemut Case No.42 of 2006 The petitioners of the contempt petition were also petitioners in W.P.(PIL) No.4391/2004. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19tb of September, 2005. While passing the order in the said writ petition, this Court made a direction as follows:- "We also direct the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, as well as the Commissioner to ensure that the provisions of Sections 255 and 257 of the said Act are followed and implemented in all respects. If anybody is found violating the said provisions of Sections 255 and 257 of the said Act, steps will be taken by the appropriate authorities for prosecuting such persons in accordance with law." The petitioners have filed the contempt petition raaking allegations that the respondent authorities are not complying the aforesaid direction issued by this Court in the Public Interest Litigation, thereby they are willfully violating the order passed by this Court. A Igtailed affidavit has been filed by respondent no.3 on 10.5.2007. It has been stated in the affidavit that on 01.12.2006, the Corporation reinoved certain broiler house, on 02.12.2006 certain meet markets were removed and further on 18.12.2006 Mutton shops were also removed. In support of the said contention, photographs .have been filed as Annexure C-3-1 to 20, Annexure C-3-21 to 26 and Annexure C-3-27 to 32. It has been further stated in the Affidavit that the Mayor-in-Council has issued a tender for making mutton shops in mutton market situated at Babu Jagjivan Ram Ward and the matter has been taken under consideration along-with the Map and estimate etc. Certain document has been filed. as Annexure C-3-33. The affidavit further contains that the Corporation has also issued a letter on 27.4.2007 for publication of mutton market to be established in Nagar Nigam Area, Raipur, which is clear from Annexure C-3-33. The affidavit also contains various other measures taken by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. :/ ^^ fS'Ssv \ ! 3 Ii Contempt Case No.42 of2006 In view of the contents of the detailed affidavit filed 01 10.05.2007 by respondent no.3., I do not deern it appropriate to proceed further in the present contempt petition as nothing appears to be violated by the respondents which is contained in the above portion of the order passed by this Court in the Public Interest Litigation. This contempt pedtion has no merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- SunilKumarsinha Judge