S) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CONTEMPT P^^iSfN^NO: py^ /2009fS.B.l C^e (3^ c-F^l' ^^- ^^- ^u PETITIONER \A^:^ ^•s^ •^'^•^'^'°^ ":'^^"^ >-\ ..i^" RBSPONDENTS/ CONTEMNORS Dudhnath, S/o Late Mansharam, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Katul Board, Post Office S.A.F. Line, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. A.K. Shrivastava, Inspector General ofPolice^ Special Armed Force Police, 2 Bungalow Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) 2. U.R. Netam, Deputy Inspector General ofPolice, 32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) 3. T.J. Longkuber Commandant, First Battalion^ Chhattisgarh Armed Police Bhilai^ District- Durg (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTIQN 10 <fe 12 OF THE CONTEMPT Oj^COURTS ACT 1971 READ WITH "^" ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,,-:.'¥3aa>^ \'^^ ^.'^, h ^' ,v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Contempt Case (C) N0.66/2009 Petitioner Dudhnath Versus Respondents A. K. Shrivastava and Others Contemnors (Contempt Petition under Section 10 & 12 ofthe Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with under Article 215 of the Constitution of India) Present: - Shri Vivek Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 07-03-2011) This contempt petition has been filed alleging that even though, a statement was recorded before this Court in its order dated 18-09-2008 passed in Contempt Petition No.49 of 2007 that the respondents are willing to pay the amount as directed by the State Administrative Tribunal and they also drawn a cheque in favour of the petitioner on 29-03-2007, the amount payable to the petitioner is not being paid to him and thereby, the respondents have committed gross contempt, as time and again, though they assured the Court, but in effect, the statement made before the Court is not being honoured and somehow or the other, the amount due and payable to the petitioner is not being paid to him. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3, who is responsible for compliance of the order of the Court, submits that the petitioner r was approached number of occasions, but the petitioner is not accepting the amount even after passing of order dated 18-09-2008 and thereafter several attempts were made to handover the amount to the petitioner, but he did not accept the same. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that three demand drafts, one of Rs.2,28,304/-, Rs.1,538/- and Rs.50,335/- have been Q/'^p ^Trt%i "•^..J —1— ^ /\ placed before the Court itself for being handed over to the petitioner. He submits that in the reply itself, it was stated that as the petitioner is not accepting the amount, the respondent authority be permitted to make an attempt before the 1 Court. 3. In the petition, the petitioner has not stated anywhere as to on which date, time and place, he has approached the respondents claiming payment. In the reply, the respondents have placed on record several documents subsequent to order dated 18-09-2008 to substantiate the submission that the amount which offered, but the petitioner did not accept the same by stating that he would accept the amount only before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever amount is being offered in the Court and is being accepted, but that may not be treated as full satisfaction of his claim, which he may have in future, may be relating to the amount. 4. Considering the submissions made, the documents on record, pleadings and various letters on record, it is difficult for this Court to accept submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent in any manner disobeyed the order of the Court. Their documents on record show that the attempts were made to handover the amount to the petitioner and those documents record that the petitioner did not accept the^amount outside the Court. Therefore, 1 am not inclined to proceed further in the matter against the respondents. In so far as respondents No.1 & 2 are concerned, considering the role played by them,! do not find that they had any role to play in the matter, but since they were party in the earlier petition, they have been impleaded in the present case also. The aforestated demand drafts have been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule is therefore discharged. 5. The petition is accordingly finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge -V,