^ •-f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASI d€\^^ | CONTEMPT PETl^E&N (O N0. ^ 2- OF 2011 PETITIONER A RESPONDENTS ^^ \c^^ V.K. Chaturvedi S/o Shri R.S. Chaturvedi, aged about 49 years, presently posted and working as Deputy Director Horticulture. Dur9. District-burg (C.&.) Versus 1. Shri Alok Katiyar S/o Shri N.C.Katiyar, a9ed about 45 years. Director Horticulture, birectorate of Horticulture and Regional Forestry, above Bank of India, Gaurav Path. Near Telibandha. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Shri N.S. Tomar, aged about 56 years. S/o. Shri G.S. Tomar, presently working as Deputy Director Horticulture, Durg (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETETION UNbER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTCTUTION OF INblA REAb WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1971. XI-HC-22 3TT^T'^T f<Tli<=h 3?I?^T 5h44ict^ ^lft^i _-. ^; € ^-F -S^ -41<41dq. ^xi1y41<5. fa^wy wwfT^^rra) 31T^?T XR^? :.'...C^..^i)j^^S(/V 200 nA •^RT^T' 3T?^T ^cff^R'H{?<T SB : Hon?bJe Shri ivlanindra Ivlohan 05-03-2011 Shri Shashank Thakur, counse Heard. . .. Learned counsei for the petitio|ner submits that in the writ petition i.e. VV.P.(S) No.363/11, an interim order which the effect and operation of ordej petitioner as weli as respondent No.2 order vi/as passed by this Court ev| ^vas passed by this Court cn 7/2/11 by dated 12/1/11 passed in respect ofthe |was stayed. He submits that the interim r^n after considering the fact that the petitioner was reiieved and respond^nt No.2 had joined earlier on 12/1/11. Learned counsel for the petitloner th^i the Court was that the petition^r shouid be allowed to continue, nofr^/ithstanding the fact that he has b| the office of Depufy Director, Hortic| Treasury Ofricer, Durg aiong with his petitioner shouid approach the comi foliowed byanother memo dated 17/"; that tili date, no directions have been the order passed by this Court on 7/2 <^J^?d^1<^l*1<yiI '9 fe^ iFsK^K '^'3rf;OT37i^?r hrivastava. J. for the petltioner. •efore, submits thata clear irstention of i^en reiieved and aiiowed to continue in jjiture, Durg, On 8/2/11, the petitioner mformed the Secretary of the departnjient that he has taken over the charge on that day. Thereafter, on 9/2/11, tllie petitloner sent a ietter to the District ^pecimen signature, so that aii drawing and disbursement powers may be ex^rcised bythe petitloner but the Djstrict Treasury Officer, Durg returned it t^ the petjtjoner with a note that the etent authority of the depBrtment for issuance of appropriate orders In c^mpiiance of the order passed by the Court. Thereafter, the pet'tioner ser|t a memo on 14/2/11 (Annexure C/4) 3/11 (Annexure C/5), 24/2/11 (Annexure C/6) and 26/2/11 (Annexure C/8). Le^rned counsei for the petitioner submits issued by the Director in compliance of 11 and in this situation, the respondent No.2 herein is continuing to dischar^e the function of the office of Deputy Tvff^-^P4 XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^T f<rti<=b 3^?i 5h^icb ^f^^ s-^7 Deepti ^ •ys( -4NH^, ^xil^t^. r°«nwy ^W^{ ^^icb ST^T "tRTcR ). ^^©wo^R,//] ^.......^.......................^ ^ 'f^^r' ^TI^T ^^IT^T ^rf^T ?- chl^i<n<fll TTP:RT? ^ fe^ ^-^K '^3rt;<W3?I^?T Director, Horticuiture at Durg and perform his duties. The order of the Court wa^ communicated to respondent No.1 - days have eiapsed. Once the orde| Director, who is the competent authcj take appropriate steps In complianc| considering that the petitioner had si the petitioner may bring to the notice no orders are passed in complianc^ wouid be at iiberty to revive contempt| of receipt of copy of this order. vVlth the aforesaid obsei-vation^ |he petitioner is not being aiiowed to passed on 7/2/11. This has been Director on 14/2/11 . Vore than fifteen has been passed by the Court, the rity of the department is duty bound to ? of the order of this Court. However, ^sbmitted his representation cn 14/2/11, t)f the Director, the order of this Court. If of order dated 7/2/11 , the petltioner petition within fifteen days from the date , the petition is finaily disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge {T^^ '^p4 T-