o^ ^ / QW BT C^),, n^rL^ •-74 ' DS^es^^l €^..®ffe.® ^JM.^^^ t£t W.P.C< @^_ A-T. of {CG) its 33 of B.T. 1. 45 years, Qf'-- tO as EMrector^ Traimng, Bazar, 2. R.<L. & to as ~ Director p'raiiiiii^ Office of EmploymeTtt and Traimiig, •- 1 . to as :• ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATNSOARH : BHASPUR S.B. s HON>BI.B 8Hm MANINDRA MGHAN 8HRIVASTAVA, J. CoatemDt Cwse (Ct N0.242/8008 PBTITIONBR A.T. CoUegeofElectronics Varsus Mlss. RaajgBia Katakwar & another RESPONDBNT8 Petltlon under Artlcle 21S oftli®Constttuttoa @f Indla r/w Section 14 ofthe Coatomot of CouytaiAct* 1971 Appearance: • Mr. Ashok Soni, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for respondent No.2. ORAL-ORIMBR (Passed on 9.02.2011) 1. Heard on LA. No.2, application for condonation of delay .in compliance of the Court oi^er dated 24.11.2008. 2. Application is allowed. The name of respcmdent No.l shaU stend deleted fonn fhe cause title. 3. By this contempt petition, fhe petitioner has alleged willflil disobedience oforder dated 2.7.2008 passed t^ lliis Oourt in W.P. (C) No. 1770/08. 4. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submitted fbat on petitioner's prayer for disposal of the writ petition with directioiis, this Court, amongst various directions, directed the National Council for •s ^y^S^ r11111^ -2- Vocational Training (N.C.V.T.) to forthwith issue fi<esh afiiliatlon certiflcate to fhe petitioner institute, in case fhe petitioner institute Was already affiliated and its afflMation bas not been withdrawn/cancelled for any reason fhereafter and ftirther directed fhat on production of afiiliation certfficate, respondent No.3 therein shall issue National Tmde Certifieates to ftie students, who have successfufly completed their trairring. This Court further reserved Uberty to the petitioner to take any recourse available under Itoe law in case affiUatlon. certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled before passing of fhe interim order dated 5.5.2008. 5. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner contended ttiat ator fhe order .Tl.-.' . was passed by fhis Court, ftie petitioner submitted representati@n on 7.7.2008 wifh a prayer for issuance of new ajffifiation certificate but respondent No.2 has not issued fhe affliltation certificate in terms of fhe order passed by this Court. 6. Leamed counsel for respondent No.2, referring to the avennents made in ftie reply, submitted that as per tlie records, ftie petitioner institute was inspected by the Standtog Committee of N.C.V.T. on 23"1 June, 1994 for fhe purposes of considering fheir affiliation. Upon scrutiny, it was observed fhat fhe petitioner institute is lacking and there are deficiencies. Therefore, vide letter dated 19th November, 1996 (Annexure-1), the State Directorate as weU as the petitioner- institute was informed about ;\ 1 i*ilf^ ^^' .-y -3- ^<B. fhe deficiencies and opportunily was ^iven to reply withto a period of one month. As the Directorate did not Feoeive any reply eiftier from fhe State Gtovemment or fi^m the petitioner, the matter was placed before fhe Sub-Commlttee of N.C.V.T. on affiliation in its meeting dated 29th January, 1997 and the said Committee decided to keep fhe petitioner-institute (under consideration) tiU rectification of deficiencies pointed out. The minutes of the meetii^ were circulated to all concemed vide memo dated 29A January, 1997. Leamed counsel for ttie respondent, fheT^bre, contended that as on the date of passing of the order by this Court, fhe petitioner institute was, m fact, not even granted any aflBliation under ftie law, there was no occasion for the N.C.V.T. to issue fresh affiUation certificate. Leamed counsel for fhe respondent further contended fhat fhe order ofthis Court clearly stated that the N.C.V.T. would be required to issue fresh aflBliation oertificate in case petitioner- tastitute was already afliliated and its affiliation has not been withdrawn/cancelled. 2. From fhe submissions of leanied counsel for the parties, pleadings and the documents on record, it is revesled fhat fhe order of fhis Court for issuaace of affiliation certiflcate was qualifled with the condition that the petitioner-institute was already affiliated and its afiiUation had not been withdrawn/cancelled. This Court had also reserved liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy as may be available to ..-..te^'^ 'ii3^^ x! '^;^'" *^ -4 - f^ him under the law in case affiUation certi&cate issued to ftie petitioner was canceUed before passing the interim order dated 5.5.2008. Therefore, at fhe time when the order was passed by this Court, fhis Court was not infwmed by any of fhe parties that therc was no aflHliation certyicate issued to the petitioner- institute ever since 1997. From fhe reply of respondent No.2 it appears fhat fhe matter, relating to grant of afiiliation, remafcned pending with fhe respondent and on the date order was passed by fhis Court on 2.7.2008, no ajBiUatioin certificate existed in favour of the petitioner-institute. Irrespective of the entitlement of fhe petitioner-institate to seek issuance of affUia.tion certificate in fhe past years, in fhe opinion of this Court, there does not appear to be any wiIMTul disobedience of fhe ordeT/directives issued by fteds Court in its order dated 2.7.2008. Wheflier even without existence of afiBUation certificate in favour of fhe petitioner- institute, the petitioner-institute would be entitled to a direction for issiiance of National Trade Certiflcate in respect of fhe students, is a matter which cannot be gone into in fhe contempt petition. Accordingfy, I do not find any merit in the petition. 3. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is acx;ordin®ly dismissed. 4. Consequentfy the rule is discharged. Praveea Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge