IN THE HOWBLE mGHeOURTOF JODICATURE AT ^.p BIL^PUR (CHHATTISGARH1 n< CONTEMPT N0. Z2008 pETITIOfIER v<A^ ^IA'\ rAflt^' ^'c\ .»•* ,.<&" .^.^.' Lalu Prasad Padi, S/o Gaaesh Prasad Pad^, Aged about77 years, R/o Power House Road, Bhoranidev Ward, Distt. Jagdalpm' (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENT CONTBMNOR O.P. Dhamai, Manager, Temple Estate, Danteshwari Mai Temple, fTehsUdar Jagdalpur) Distt. Bastar (CG) CONTEMPT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 213 OF THE COiraTITUTION OF INDIAREAD WITOl SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT *11»IWI ftiWcd ^"T '^TfqRT^, atil^lrf, ^^W^ ^..•....C..^1Q...^^I^^ •Wi. 200 STT^I TI°W (Tpf-.p^q) 3TI^I ^I Ki-ljob 1cTS:fT STT^^TTT^ [8B s Hou'ble Sfari Manindra Btohan Shrlvastava. J.I 20.9.2011 Shri Sourabh Shanna, Shn Ajay Dwivedl, couns^l cotmsel froka Though, number ofoppor]tunitii to file rejoiader, as reflected counsel for fhe petitioner agait^ granted. However, after goir^ of opportunities was graated no rejoinder has been filed, I aai operation of fhe order dated 27 (Anaexure P-6) placed on recoi( +Wlc'l<il-t tlltlrtf ^ feiSt <Fa|^H ^•sifgqsn^r for the petitioner. for fhe respondent. >r]tunities was granted to the petitioner earlier order-sheets, today leamed u^ prays fhat soiae inore tim.e inay be ftu-ough fhe records and fhat number fhe petitioner to ffle rejoinder, but not iaclined to graat further time. tt> This contempt petition bss^s been filed by fhe petitioner allegmg wittful disobedience offhe orde^- dated 19.4.2007 passed iaW.P. (C) No. 5684 of 2006 on fhe submijssion fhat even fhough fhe efltect aad 8.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional OfiGicer (R), Jagdalpur was sts(yed by fhis Court vide order dated 19.4.2007, respondent, workm|g in the capacity as Manager, issued notice caUmg for meetmg of pie Committee of Trustees, Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner sub^aits fhat the notice dated 1.12.2007 1 has been issued by the respondent Pr». calling for meeting, whereas the appointment of fhe Trustee was stayed by fhis Court and therefore by caUuig such a meetmg, Uie respondent acted in wiUful disobedience and defiance ofthe Coiut's order. wy—"^ •- .;y' ^ XI-HC—7S 'Svf •^T.qj^pT^ »t)1'y'](o, fe(dl'yy,< w^r -^v (^y^s) sn^fi TI R-fi'* ^T«n STI^T ^tltet! On the other hand, lei referring to speci&c avermenl submits that the respondent 1.12.2007 anud the dociiment does not contaiii his signature. has been taken on or after 1.1: on 9.4.2006, which is prior to further submlts that fhe resp< filmg of fhe petition, mforme^ Committee that no meetmg has there is an interim order have been made . in fhe petitioner in spite of repeate^ consideration the subniissionsl by fhe respondent, I am not| matter. tlas wbich operalfui! retulm The nile is therefore fhat the order of the Court i$ maim.er, action may be taken. «hl'l|l<-t41-ltITO?!? •iffezt TfSre^R ^? siRpr ST!^I jmed coiinsel for the respoadent, made on affidavit in the reply, uever issued aay such letter on is said to be issued by him also He furfher submite fhat no meetii^ 1.2007 aad fhe last lueeting held was fhe order passed ty fhe Court. He kndent, having come to know about to all fhe members of fhe Temple been called by him on 1.12.2007 as mg. The categorical averments which m, could not be disputed by fhe opporturuty graated. Taking iato wfaich have been made on affidavit inclmed to proceed furtfaer ia fhe discjharged1. However, iu case, it is found violated by the respondent in any Wifh the aforesaid otlservations, fhe petition is finalty disposed of. sd-r Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge