6Y (^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATUR CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. ContemptNo. ] t-,^ / 2004 :tl APPLICANT/ PETITIONER ./ Pawan Kumar Chaurasiya, S/o. Shri Bans Gopal Chaurasiya, aged about 21 years, R/o. E-l/2 Nehru Chowk Bilaspur [C.G.] VERSUS CONTEMNOR APPLICANT 1. B. Shankar, Principal, Govt. Dental College, Raipur (C.G.) ^, 2. Dr. R.M.Zade, Dean, Chhattisgarh Dental College & ^. ^ Research Institute, Sundra, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Nemi Parakh, Vice President, Chhattisgarh Dental College & Research Institute, Sundra, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION U/A'215 OF CONSTITUTION OF READ WITH SEC. 12 & 15 OF CONTEMPT OF INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEi A THE RESPONDENTS FOR VIOLATING THE ORDER DTD. 3. PASSED IN W.P. N0. 375^/2004. fl CHAURASIYAVS. STATE OF C.G. & OTHEI X;-HC—78 ^-ST ^n7n^rq, ^wre, ^rRTy ..ta£v^C...i^...^....A5.^ RTq^ 'WW if 'fetfl' ^RRT!: |3?1^;'STTO? 'iW 3u^T 5?l:IHi .+. On a mention being made. 1+i^case is taken up for hscir'ing, Shri Pravin Oas, counssi for ijie petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, counss) for the respondsnts 2 and 3. Heard ieamed counsel for Th^ parties. The petjtioner has preferre^i this petition under <4rticle 215 of the Conatitution of India read witii Sections 12 & 15 of the Contempt of Court Act for initiatin9 co|itempt proceedings against the respondents for viobtion of -rtie Coijrt's srde.r dated 3-11-2004. The petition of the petjl^oner is that vide order dated 3-11-2004 tiiis Court directed -riie bental College, Raipur to consider the case of the petitioner for adn^ssion in the bental Coilege, Raipur and aT least ? days' Time was a!lowe<j To produce original TesTimonials. On 8-11-2004 ths petitioner cppeairsd befors the bean, bental Coliege, Raipur and submitted the jeti'er in pursuance of the Court's order da+ed 3-11-2004, but responcjent No.l refused to 9iye admission to the petitioner saying that uni^ss he yts permissiors from the AA.C.I., Delhi, he will not ba given ad|nission. Even respondent No.3 was made aware of the Court's order ^tnd a let+er was given to him for returning the origmal testimonials. ^fter" receiving 1+ie so.id letter and copy of theorder dated 3-11-2004, respondsnts 2 and 3 havs refused to givc or'iginai clocuiTicRte-+e-4h®-p®I(+t»onat*-ttn+H4>e-poiys-fees-for-fom' BE'-l XI-HC—7S -3S ^n^i^r, ^fl1 <t- "k WqfeN^ TWRB ^ fecA TCTRT!: •^T sfigil 3n*si years course. The act of reaponde^its 2 and 3 leads to non-complicncs of the order passad by this Cour1{ which wouid amount to deiiberate ond wiliful contempt of tiie order p^ssed by this Court. Raply hcs been filed on beh<|!f of respondents 2 and 3 in which it has been mentioned that Therejis no SDecific ora'sr of the Court directing them to return original t^stimonials. Even otherwise, at the time of admission as per the prosp^ctus and undertaking given by the petitioner herein it was mcide cleaj- to him Thst if after admission is qiven to the petitioner he wilt see|i caincelkitlon of the adnsission for any reason, then according to th|e rules and regulations prevailing documents wiil be returned. As (^er th®undertaking given by the petitioner and as psr the rules pui^iished in the prospectus of bentat Collsge, Rajnandgaon, respondent hjo.Z, itiey are entitied for fu!! fees of the course. The originai documints canrso* be re'hjrned unless the petitioner pays that fee. They a^e not tegally bound to return the documents. j In the light of submission made by r-espective counse! and pleading of the parties, I have p4rused The order dated 3-11-2004 passed in writ petition No.3754/^304. Per-usai of the same reveais that no specifie direction wos giyen *o respondents 2 and 3 for returning the original documents tojthe petitioner. Even otherwise, cs •per -rtic ruica-s^-pe^endont bcn*d4fietiege-find-fcindeiatelwt§-givsn by - i-HC—7i T<il<l]<vl^, ^fll<-]'16, [siiriiyy ^•reiWSti' ",w Barve il-'la^J the petitioner' himseif, Ine petitior|er is not entitled for -1+ie or^inai doeuments unless he dsoosits eritire course fees provision has not been challenged so In the cit'cumstanees, I dsm this case the oetttioner has failed the contempt proceeding <md to p^inish the respondents 2 <& 3 for vsolation of the Court's order lated 3-11-2004, therefore, the rition is siable to be dismissed and tar. of the eonsidsred opinion that in to make out a case for initiating it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge