G) 2 WY ‘p/ r’ " $§n§§§ _ Emmi . ’ 2' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATH AT BILASPURL 4": w wk .._ V . CONTEMPTWNO.‘ “/L’I /2oo7 V ‘ _ A/PPLICANT ‘ W )omonkul Shri Du‘rgo Belchondon, Prasod Belchonddn, 5/0. Lafe "V ‘ aged Kursipar, about P.S.'Arjungc, 59 years,.R/o. Working village ash ReVenue Inspector —‘ Revenue I , Circle — Villoge Andc, Disfrjct Durg (Chhon‘fisgorh) VERSUS Alok Shukla, Secretory}, Depff of Revenue,“ Dou Kalydn Singh Bhcwon, Raipur (CG) 2. ' Vilium KUjur,‘Awor‘Sachiv,.DepH. Of Revenue, Dou'Kalydn Singh Bhowan, RoipUr (C.G.) ‘ Subrowahu, Conecior, Durg (CG), ‘ TR. Sahu, S/o-. Ramji Sohu, aged _, ' about 54 years, ’residenfof’ DUrg,_ working os Reyenue Inspector e R.l; CircTee Durg, Dish‘. Durg (CG) A CONTEMPT PEImIo‘N ,LTNDER SECTlo V 12 OF THE CONTEMPI OF COURTS'ACT 4971 ’ ‘ @ V§ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contzmpf Case No. 14 of 2007 Single BenchzHon'He Shri satish K. Agnihofri, J. Mr. T.K. Tlwar'i, counsel for fhe applicant. ORDER (Passed on 25*“ Day'of January, 2007) On 19-9-2005, This Cour? in Writ Petition No. 4467/2005 passed an order of granting in‘I'erim relief 'lo mainfain sta‘l'us qua as obfains on ‘l‘ha‘i‘ day, ‘ in respeci' of 'l'he p‘e‘liiioner. Thereaf‘l‘er', according 1'0 The learned counsel V appearing for The pefiiioner, despi‘le order dafed 19-9-2005 some alher order was passed ‘on 31-8-2005, which according To ’lhe pe'l'ii'ioner was conirary To fhe order daied 30-6—2006 (Annexure 6-2), passed by This Court 2.’ The Wri‘r Pe‘rii'ion No. 4467/2005 was finally dismissed vide order da'ied 30.10.2006 as having become infruc‘l'uous in view of ihe subseqtien‘l' r iransfer order.‘Theiini-erim order claied 19-9-2005 has merged with fhe final order daied 30-10-2006 passed in fhe main petifion. , Grant of an inferim - order To mainfain s‘l'a‘ius quo as obi-ains on ihai' day survives during pendency of i'he wri‘r peii‘l'ion only, noi' fhereaf‘l'er. If, confenfion of ihe pe‘l'i‘l'ioner fha'i 5 s'ia‘ius quo order gran‘ied earlier be considered offer disposal of fhe wri'r pe‘iifion is accep‘l'ed fhafllmay lead fo devastating consequences leaving no way Q of undoing the mischief. Sfatus quo order is not forever in a transfer case. If status quo order is maintained, even after disposal of the writ petition, the l " some would create hindrance in the administrative functioning of the i« i * l i f‘i ii' ‘0 5 l i Appiican‘r Romanlal Belchandan Versus Non-applicanfs : Alok Shukla and ofher's Presenf: Subhash +W »w w / ”2 employer *0 place a person a‘l' d par‘l'icuhr' place in fhe public ini'er‘es‘r and in adminisfm'rive exigency. I‘l‘ is we“ se‘H'led fhni *he Iogic undeklying ‘rhe, doctrine of merger can mi be more ihan one decree or operative order governing The éqme subject ma‘l‘fer a‘r a given poini' of fime. The interim or‘aer which merges wiih the final order cannoi be allowed To, operai'e offer disposal ~ of The pefi'l‘ion. The peti‘i‘ioner can noi' challenge i‘he alleged violation of fhe inferim order after disposal of fhe main pefi'rion. 3. In vievv of lhe above, no case for confemp'r is made out Thus, fhe confemp‘r pefi'rion Is dismissed. No order as To cosfs.