HIGHCOURTOFI'MECMM^TTISGARHJATBII-ASPUR Contemb(Casem»N6.149 bf!2010 Petitioner ReSDOndent C.P. Sl'irivastdva S/o Shri C.K. Sl'irivasteiya,^ ag^d about 45 yearsR/Q33,yrinclm,(QnCplQny, Raigarh,Distt.feajgarlT(CG) .i'- :7:;.':. :.:.' /"'::''"^' •;''' ":"''1-'.;.-';:"'"''"1"1' Versus ,.. :1'. ShFt ^P.B^^^ Director. Department ^ Adrnim^ti^on^ndDevelopmerit, Distt.Bilaspur^.G.) CONTEMPT'PETITIONUNDERSECTIONIZOlTHECQNTEMP'rOF COURTS^^rREADVyifH^Rfl^t-i^^OFt^iCONSTl '-1Nlt^'..;:;ll\^-,'...''-^:'." ADpearance: :;' 1^11:' -^'.•^•..•.:' Mr.N.NahaRoyiAcJvocateforthepetitioner.J ORA1.0RDER {29.07.2010) SUNiLKUiVJARSINHA.J. nii'i:u ./'- •€ Heard on admi^sion; ! Petitioner-C.P. Shrivasta\^ has filed this^ proceedings of contempt ^gainst the Joint Director, ^Department of Ui'ban Administratioh and Devdopment, disobedienceoftheprderdated 26.3,2010 passedinWA.No.6^ The Divisjon Bench of fhis Court while entjertaining the writ apipeal passedthe followingorderon 26.3.2010:- "ShnN.NahaR6y,counseldfor Shri Amrito Das, Pariel Lawyer for the State/respondente^^ N 1 & The retevarit departmental ^orcl shal^^l^ ryles <rf business tp showl^ appeilant\^spassed!>yapropero^ intherulesofbusiriessoftheGovemment j r Ustitaftertwowesks^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^- Jill then stafus quolwith regard tQ posting bf^^to^ existstodayshallbemaintained.ir^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I^ Mr. N. Naha Roy submits that as an effect of interim order of status quo^ the petitionerhadto performthedutiesol'Chief^M he was not permitled to db so for^^^ petitionerhasbe^aliowecttocontinuepntheposfr^^ LaJIungaasaneffectoftheinterimordergrantedon2@.3.201Q. Contemut Case (C} No. 149 of 2010 ivlr. N. Naha Roy couid not produce any document to show that in between this period order dated 26.3,2010 w;as communicated to the ,^, /- in.ik^ \ ~'% respondents or in any other manner it was/knowiedge of the respondents. Be that as it may, slnce the petitioner is continuing on the post of Chief ivlunicipai Officer, Lailunga, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, there does not appear any vioiation of the order dated 26.3.2010 and the status quo existing on the said date has been maintained even as per statement of Mr. N. NahaRoy. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to proceed furtherin the matter. The proceedings of contempt, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dlsrnissed summanly. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge •^^'^