y '^ i»c~'i ® siiigie isasy^ BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^T^- CONTEMPT PETm&N (Civil) No ^13 /2011 ^&_s<,^-. (Arising out of order dated 30.06.2011 passed in Writ Appeal No. 399/2010 by Division Bench ofthis Hon'ble Court) PETITIONER T o .*• ^^^c<^\\ •••"'°',.<(^y' -.•••""< ^"\^^ Shivendra DasVaishnav, S/o Shriramannat Das Vaishnav, agffd about 56 years, R/o Ward No. 6, Gandai, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^y ^"'^^ ^-•"^' <y CONTEMNORS VERSUS Shri K. D. Chandrakar, Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gandai, District Rajnangaon (C.G.) CQNTEMPT PETITION^UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CgMSTITUTION OF IN^DLA__READ,WITH,SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. \ ^ .an^l^TlyiW :%3{!^WWmT ^iPldl «iHl<=h 7£f"^IAIM'll, 0111^16, fs)('tl^y,< ^...^...±c^&i^^f 3tR?TT5RT (^f3?S?; ^giWtrfsasn^T SB ; Hon'ble Shri Maaindta Mohan Shrivastava. J ohi^'fl-i iwRS i( fe^t <r«i<^i< ^'sTRm.sn^T 30.11.2011 Shri Basant Dewar^ajn, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. This petition has beei disobedience of the order Appeat No.399/2010. Leamed counsel for petition filed by the petitionj appeal was filed. The wri| allowed and auction notice^ quashed. Nagar Panchaya^ case of the petitioner in the Court The petitioner the Chief Miinicipal Oflicer| conimunicated vide meiao has been filed, seekuig revi in the High Court and fur decision. He subiuits fhat contemptuous. |i filed by the petitioner aUeging willful lated 30tt' June, 2011 passed in Writ |the petitioner submits that fhe writ ^r was dismissed, against which, a writ I: appeal fUed by fhe petitioner was dated 19.3.2010 and 29.3.2010 were was further du-ected to process the Ught of the observations made by fhe subEJiitted representation on 28.7.2011 to jof Nagar Panchayat, Gandai, who has [dated 25.8.2011 fhat review petition ew of the order dated 30th Jiine, 2011 jher action would be taken only after tjiis action on fhe part of respondent is XI-HC—78 3T^T^l1S;(Ni" CTsif^aiiiw (<•; Pravees. + 'Srcf "Mi-idci^, anly-iis, fs|<niyy •WI, 200 sn^i Tra^ (^?f3^r) TO(IW8fel3i1^?I z- <t)M^<fll 'WR^Jf ^f fS'1^' •d^l^R ^T3tfOT3n^?T Perusal of mem.o dated 25.8.2011 shows that further proceedings towards compjiance of order dated 30th June, 2011 have been"suspended on been filed. However, fhe oitder does not show that in fhe review any interun order has'beeni the order dated 30ttl June, review petition does not op^rate as stay. Therefore, unless there is mterun order, therespond^nt/contemnor is under an obligation to comply wifh the order of fh^ Court in its true spirit. Taking into consider. compliance of the order ha^e been suspended on account of filinj of review petition, tnstead expedient to dispose it ofj petition does not operate a^ June, 2011. Ordered accordtngly. She ground fhat a review petition has passed, staying effect and operation of |2011 or any ofher order. Mere filing of .tion fhat further proceedings towards |of issutng notice at present, I deem it observtng that mere filing of review stay. Unless ttiere is an intermi order operating, respondent is u|ider an obligation to eomply with the order of fhe Court m its thie spirit. The respondent shaU act in accordance wifh law towarlds conipliance of the order dated 30th Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shnyast, Judge ava