^s3; IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OrCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR j^c^^^ Contempt ft^^B-No: r^9 3 /2009 SB fContempt petition under Article 215 Constitution oflndia) ^ ^ ^ "^"' Petitioner - ^ Prabhat Kumar Soni S/o late Shri Dukhaharanlal Soni, Aged about 59 years, Assistant Gram Panchayat Officer, and Secretary Gram Panchayat Kotgaon, Tahsil Gunderdehi, R/o Gunderdehi District Diirg (C.G.) ^ ^.'. :i~'.^ r>::.^ ..fr-g... "• Versus Resporidents -o- jnt^^i^ -1. ^ 2. 3. ; 4. Smt. Meena Sahy W/o Shri Umashankar, aged about28 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kotgaon, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) Shri.Umashankar Sahu, S/o Shri Dhanush Ram Sahu, aged about 32 years, R/o Kotgaon, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.). Shri Purnanand Belchandan S/o Shri Tijau Ram Belchandan, Aged about 36 years Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kotgaon R/o village Kotgaon, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) Shri Kejau Ram Sahu S/o Late Sliri Manihar Caste Teli, Aged about 60 years, R/o Village Kotgaon, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District, Durg (C.G.) . 4- L?> Contempt petition under Article 215, Constitution of India. //^ f €.^S^T^ 1 i ^gP&^C-22; -^ STT^T^T f^ri^Tw^r $t)^ii<=ti ^f^a :^ ^Ef -4|<L||d^, ^^-y41<o, ^Qll-My 3TT^T "q=W ^...fa.*....c..^..E^^^ ^l^dl ^hNlch "I^^T' 'SIT^T'^TTW^rf^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindl'a Mohan^hrivastava, J. 10,3.2011 Shri Yashwant Tiwadl Shri A.K. Prasad, cou|nsel Heard. petilion 2009 dlrected petitic|ner wctrkin^ This contempt disobedience of the order in W.P. (S) No.2959/09.1 submitted that on25.6.; passing of the order was the placement of the when the petitioner was the respondents No. 1 & 3 threatened the petitioner o^ working. It is also allege<| provided, it was thrown was reported to the police officers, copies of which P-2 to P-6. On the other hand, refemng to fhe avermeni respondent No. 1 to 3 ha1 chl4(d4l-l iTFT^f ^ 'f^st <^^l< ^"^rf^m^n^r counsel for fhe petitioner. for respondents No. 1 & 3. has been filed alleging wiUful ^lated 25.6.2009 passed by fhis Court Learned counsel for the petitioner ), status quo, obtaining on fhe date of to be maintained with regard to cjner. It is the case of the petitioner fhat c^rking m fhe office on 30th June, 2009, lobstructed in performance of duty and dire consequences it'he does not stop fhat when a copy of fhe order was respondents No. 1 & 3. The matter ^nd aii information was given to higher been placed on record as Annexure bi^ hatve |leamed counsel for fhe respondents, |s made in the reply, submits that jre highest regard for the orders and f^^feq f •ri l' XI-HC-22 ^ST^T^T f<rli<=h 3TI^? ^^ict<) ^rfi?? Praveen •^^ ~^l<4ld^ yTl1yJl^. f®i<ni^^ SU^T xra^ 'W-^TT ^Wch "Wl, 200 "f^^T' proceedlngs ot ftiis Court. He respondents are highly baselejss intended to disobey or flout th|c that the order of the Court ^ first tmie when order dated Janpad Panchayat, Gunderde^ respondents have speci&cally In view of the submissiot parties, pleadings and materijal the petitioner was aUowed to order dated 6.7.2009 of C.E.Oi passed by this Court on 25.6.^ further in the matter. The rule is therefore dis|c disposed of. <=bl^?d41<rl 'WMt* ^ f^t Tf^?R iTa^m'sn^r .ubmits tfaat the allegations against and at no point of time they ever order ofthe Coi-irt. It is submitted as communicated to them for ftie 6.7.2009 passed by the C.E.O. d, was communicated to them. The enied such allegation. is made by leamed counsel for fhe on record and considering that continue in fhe office by virt.ue of passed in compliance of the order 1009, I aoi not inclined to proceed :harged and the petition is tinalty Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge |-v:rf^ -^^ 14-