HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENT Contemnor Contempt Case (Cl No.52 of 2010 Udai Pal Singh Bhacteuria, aged about 59 years, Son of Late Brijnayak Singh Bhadauria, Assistant Sub Inspector, P.S.- Mandlrhasoud, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus Shri Mukesh Gupta, I.G., Durg Area, Durg Chhattisgarh (Contemot Petition under Article21S ofthe Constttution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act) Appearance: Mr. T.K. Th/vari, Advocate forthe petitioner. ORALORDER (31.03.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission, Petitioner-Udai Pat Singh Bhadaurfa has fited this petjtion for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondent for the alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 07.05.08 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 216/2008. This Court while hearing W.P. (S) 216/2008 passed thefollowing order on 07.5.2008:- Shri T.K. Tiwari, Counsel for the pelitioner. Shri Amnto Das, Panel Lawyer forthe State. The respondents-authority may procecd witfi a departmental enquiry, but shail not pass the fina! orciier, till the next date of hearing. List it for final hearing in its due course, subject to filing of proper paper book within a period of four weeks, jn accordance with High Court Rules. Thereafter, as stated by the learned Counsel for the petittoner, the said writ petition was fixed for hearing on 22.07.08, but on that date, the matter could not be heard and the interim order granted on 07.05.2008 was also not extended by the writ Court. The petitioner also ^^ ?^ '^s^s^ rli{ n Contempt Case (C) No. 52 of 2010 did not flle any application for restoration/extenslon ofthe said order or for grant of any fresh order in his favour and ultimately final order was passed in departmental proceeding on 24.02.2010. Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitloner, submits that the words used in the order dated 07.05.2008 as 'till the next date of hearing' would means till the date when effective hearing takes place that means till the matter is taken up for hearing on the merits of the case. He also submits that on 22.07.2008 the matter was fixed for hearing on application for condonation of delay in filjng the paper books. He referred to the decision rendered in the matter of Dr. Luls Proto Barbosa -Vs» Union oflndla and Others. 1992 Suw.f2lSCC 644. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case for proceeding in contempt is made oiri. The order dated 07.05.2008, in clear terms, says that what would be the outer limit of th@ said order. It is cleariy mentioned in the said order that the respondent may proceed with departmental enquiry but shall not pass the final order till the next date of hearing. The next date of hearing was 22.07.2008. On the said date the life of the order was not extended and even after that no application was filed for restoration of the order or for passing a fresh order. The reljance of Mr. T.K. Tiwari on the judgment of Dr. Luis is misconceived as the facts and text and tenor of order passed in lx»ththe cases are distinguishable. In the above facts and circumstances, if the final order in the departmental enquirywas passed on 24.02.2010, itcannot be held thsrt it was passed in violation of order dated 07.05.2008. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any good ground to proceed further in the matter. The petltion is Hable to be dismtesed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge v^'