1-HC—~S 'qr SII^T g^risi; f^ •<il'--lQl--i, S9T)l-H'|!s. [slrll-'-iy .c.<?fl-/..-...^.^rc.^/*,.-is40; aiTOi'T^? W?W'tlftT ar^7 PE.TITIONER •Jagannsjfh Gupta, S/o. Maagal Sao Gupta, a|)out 67 years, R/'o. Sadar Bazai, Kawardlta, District- Kabirdham i.CG\ aged Kawardlt Versusl REsPONDBN'T C.D. Tehsi] District Idfo Pet!tionunder_Artic!e 21e offe 'yenaa, Chief Municipal Officer cum. i^T, Muiiicipal Council, Kawardha, Kabirdham (CGj Coastitution of !adia read with Ssctioa 12 of the Colatempt 01 Courts Act SB: HON'BLE SHRI DHIRBNDRA iMISHRA. J. 27.02^009 Stui Anup Majumdar, coilnsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has move4 No.609/2001. Learaed counsel for the ^?!H7TTit;T ^HT^ ~^ 1^lSt <n^^!< ^sffinsii^i this petition for initiation of coiitempt proceediugs against the respon^lent for willful violation of the order of Attnexure P-1 dated 21st Noven^ber 2007 passed by this Coiirt iu W.P. Ipetitioner subiuits that this Court vide order of Annexune P-1 had rect>rded fhe stateinent of leamed counsel appearing for the respondent, Ijhat the petitioner shall not be renioved from the property ia dispute •^ifhout affording proper opportimity of hearmg to the petitioner in acc4-dance with law. It was further observed tn.at toe compliance ot t&e unppgned omer siiau not De uisistea upon. However; the respondent, afl;er issuing show-cause notice dated 27.9)2008 aad after obtaming!repfy from the petitioner, has passed fresh order ofAnnexure P-3 on 11.10.2008 and demolished fhe structiu-e of the petitioner. The subsequent order has been passed contnaiy to the provision ofSection 223 offhe Wuiucipalities Act. i j4eard lea;mpfi rnrunse] ^r: t1^<:I ^e'titJone.C,—_————. ^ '^ ^•HU—/» .-^TTT' 1 vf sv^ .,(•• ^ tr o, ?=? •^l<ll"la1, »Tl!<-l)l-c, ^islCTI-My qWcTT^PlT^t 31'^W^3T (' y') ysnw ^fe; sn^T After hearing leaiiied consideiation offhe order of that subsequeat order has affordiug proper opportunily the considered opinion of this that me respondent has wiUfu fflfufo. ^ounsel for the petitioner and after due ^nnexure P-1, this Court is offh.e opiuion beeu passed by the respondent after ^»fhearing to the petitioner. Therefore, ia |Court, there is nothing on iwxird to show violated fhe order ofAanexure P-1. In the result, the petitio^i disinissed and is accorduigly ais ^r^t^-ql'l *-f14-i"ti "^l T'SW ^^il-Cii ^; sifaiT an^i being devoid of substaace deserves to be isinissed at the adinission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ? -1—n-,.^-.._,