^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT : H.L. CJ» Contempt No. 480F^.06, AppEican€s Mohan Gond, aged about 55 years, son of Budhram. 2. Smt. Rukhmani Bal, aged about 45 years, wife of Shri Mohan Gond. 3. Brij Bihari, aged about 42 years, S/o. Rama Shankar 4. Smt Shaii Kumar about 40 years, wife of Shri Brij Bihari 5. Janaklai, aged about 37 years, son of Chunukial. 6. Smt imia Bai, aged about 37 years, VWo. Shri.Japsakiai. 7, Pawan Kumar, aged about 41 years, S/o. Parasram Yadav. 8. Smt. Hira Bal, aged about 40 years, wife of Shri Pawan Kumar 9. Bharat, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Jodhram. Ati resident of Viiiage Math Puraina, Raipur VS. 1. Shri Sanjay Sharma, son of not known, Sub DlvlsiQnai Olfjcer, Zone N0,6- Bhatgaon, Municipai Corporation, Ralpur 2. Shri Pankaj Tiwari, Time Keeper Zone No.6, BhatgaopL 3. Shri Kamaipreet, Commissloner Municipai Corporation, Raipur Presenfc . Shri BP. Sharrna counsei for the petitioners. Shri H.B. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawai, counsel for the respondents, ORAL (Passed on 26" March, 2007) 2. This Court whiie entertaining the writ petition No.536 of 2001, by its order dated 23.04.2001 had passed the foliowing order: "if the petltioners are in possession of the land or piots in question as on this date, they shali nct be ousted nor shali thes'r house or structure be demolished until further orders from this Court." (2) VVhen the petition was fiied, the petjtioners had chosen to array Shri M.L Gupta, Additionai Tahsiidar, Tahsii Office, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and one Shri Rupchand Sharma, Revenue inspector, Tahsil Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh as respondents in the v^rit petltion. (3) The order that was passed by this Court v^as operatlng oniy against those respondents. (4) In this Contempt petition, the petitioners that tne Municipai Corporatjon, Raipur has demollshed the structures which were in possession ofthe petitlQners on 15.06.2006 and, therefore, it Is alleged that the respondents have wjllfuily and deiiberately disobeyed the orders ana directions issued by this Court in the Writ Petition No.53.6 of 2001, dated 23.04.2001. (5) The first principle for maintaining a contempt petitlon is that there must be an order and that order shouid be passed against any partiouiar person or authority and also the order should contain a positive direction. (6) in the instant case, the interim order that vvas passed by this Court on 23.04.2001 was against the respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition. The Municipa! Corporation, Raipur was nowhere in the pictu-re and therefore, interim order passed by thls Court was not operating against the MunlcJpai Corporatlon. Sffor any reason, the Municipai Corporation has demolished the structures which were in possession ofthe petitioners, it cannot be said that the Municipai Corporation has deiiberateiy and wllffuily disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court on 23.04.2001. K^r|^^^j||p;p^|^^ ^ ^ (7) in view of this, I do not Intend to take cognizanoe of thls oontempt petition and it is accordingiy rejected. Ordered acoordlngiy. Sd/- ChiefJustice