ii^ Ti-il^ HtLjfl OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) .? Contempt Case (Cl No. LS ^ /2011. (Arising out of order dated 18.02.11 passed in writ petition (S) No. 6436/2010 by Hon'ble High Court.) t^ / PETITIONER: .b "^ ^^ ^ ^^y^ <^y Respondent IContemnpr) Anand Kumar Swi, son of Gopal Swi, aged about 35 years, residence of Shiv inandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. Yersys Dr.K.R.Mourya, In Charge Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CQNTEMFT QF COURTS ACT. ? ^^ 1 3 S \,s^/. ^vv HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. Contempt Case (Cl No. 156 of 2011 PETITIONER AnandKumarSwi. Versus RESPONDENT Dr. K.R. Mourya. Shri C.J.K. Rao. counset for petrtioner. ORALORDER (03/05/2011) Following oral order of Prashant Kuinar Mishra. J< the Court was passed by \/ In W.P.(S) No. 6436 of 2010 this Court has quashed the tetter dated 07/10/2010 by which the respondent in the writ petition invited nomjnations from Employment Exchange for making appointment on the post of Driver. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/contemnor has made appointment on the said post after requisitionjng of names under the order which stands quashed in the writ petition and thus a case for initiation of proceeding under contempt of Court js made out. (3) It is to be seen that after quashing the letter dated 07/10/2010 thjs Court has not issued any consequential order directing the respondente in the writ petition to do or not to do any particular act. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform the Court as to whether the appointment are made before the order was passed jn the wrjt petition or after the said decision, however he would submit that selection is still going on. "i'~-.. I •'"''•''"'. !••;, \"^ ^ ^•^' ^ u<3Ss£ffiasag«.^s^. -^. (5) Be that as it may, from the document annexed with the writ petition it is not revealed that any process of selection was or is continuing. Petitioner can obtain information under Right to Information Act, if any such proceeding is going on. Even otherwise, if any, selection has been madeor the process of such selection has been undertaken, the remedy for the petitjoner is to prefer a duly constituted writ petition and present contempt petition is not appropriate proceeding. (6) In view of the above, the present contemptpetttjon is dismissed as not maintainable, hcwever the petitioner wouW be at liberty to pursues such remedy available to him. accordance with law. r sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge I?-'