1 S.B.Civil Contempt Petition No.43/2005 Sampat Lal. vs. OP Saini and others. Date : 18.7.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.PP Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.NM Lodha, AAG, for the respondent. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The interim order was passed by this Court on 15.12.2004 and this Court stayed the operation and effect of the order dated 10.9.2004 and also directed the respondents to restore the position back as it was was existing before 10.9.2004. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was restored to the position of he being Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Mandal. This order was challenged by the respondents by preferring special appeal immediately obviously on opening of Courts on 7.1.2005. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the respondents may move the application for modification of the order before the High Court itself. In view of the above, the SLP was withdrawn by the State. It is stated that on 7.2.2005, the officer- 2 in-charge could obtain the copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on 8.2.2005, new elections for Pradhan were declared in the State of Rajasthan. In view of the above, the order dated 15.12.2004 could not have been complied with after 8.1.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondents are in habit of committing contempt of this Court by flouting the orders which is apparent from the fact that on earlier occasion, the petitioner was suspended from the post of Pradhan of the same Panchayat Samiti and the Division Bench set aside the suspension order but despite the order of the Division Bench, the petitioner was not put on said post. The petitioner thereafter submitted contempt petition no.189/2004 wherein the conduct of the three respondents was condemned by the Division Bench which is clear from the order passed by the Division Bench dated 20.7.2006. Be it as it may be, in the present controversy, the dates are very relevant. Interim order was passed on 15.12.2004. The respondent challenged the order by preferring SLP on 7.1.2005 without any delay and in a period of one month only, new elections were held and, therefore, it cannot be said in the facts and 3 circumstances of the case that the respondents willfully disobeyed the order dated 15.12.2004. In view of the above, this contempt petition is dismissed and the notices are discharged. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya