IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Contempt Case (Civil^ No. \\ 5 /2011 APPLICANT: '^f Ramsajiwan Aged about 30 Years, S/o Shri Sonai, R/o Village Khongapani, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.) ^. NON-APPLICANT: CONTEMNOR VERSUS PRNo.....v..^:. ,;,'^, ,,_ ' Preaenteci by Dated^.. Q^ ^\]\-j Nikhil Gajraj Sub-Divisional Officer Department of Revenue Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The following is respectfully submitted on behalf of the applicant: '•^^ ^/ ^ u HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BHASPXTR SINOLB BBNCH : HON*BLB SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRTVASTAVA.J. Contemot Csuse (Cl No.119/3011 PETITIONBR RESPONDENT Ramsajiwan Versus Nilshil Gajmj Petltion under Sectlon 12 of tiie Qinteinpt ofCSourta Act r/w Article 21S ofthe Conatitutioa oflndta Apoearance: Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for fhe petiticmer. Shri Sourabh Dangi, counsel for fhe respondent. ORAL-OKDBR (Passed 01126.7.2011) Heard on admission. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner alle^ing WLUful disobedience of order dated 19th Augiist, 2010 (Amiexure C-l) passed inW.P. (S) No.6616/08. 2. The case of (he petitioner is that fhe petitioner's appUcation for issuance of perm^ient caste certificate was rejectcxi on fhe ground that he failed to prodzice land records prior to year 1950. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition. Relying upon the dedsion in ttie case o Naren.dra , Dehariya Vs. State ofC.G. 8s Ors. [W.P. (C) 5070/07] decided on 27.9.2007, writ petition was disposed of, directing the rcspondent \ to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order ^^ ^/^" / M. ^^ I V^ss&^. %• '^^^iS^ S -2- in accordance with law, wifhout msisting on production of fhe land records prior to year 1950, as land records alone are not fhe requirement. 3. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submits that fhereafter fhe respondent proceeded to pass an order on 25th Januaiy, 2011 (Annexure C-4), by which petitioner<s application was again rejected and fhe respondent has again relled upon the ^une circumstance of non-production ofland rea)rds prior to 1950 aiKi therefore, fhe order passed by tliis Coiirt on 19th August, 2010 has been flouted. 4. On the other hand, leamed counsel for fhe rcspondent subioits that after fhe order of fhe Court was received, fhe entire materlal on record was examined. The respondent took into consideratlon various documents, report and specifically referred to ttie order passed by this Court on 19.8.2010. fhe mater was sent for enquiry to Tahsildar- Manendragarh, who submitted a report on 25.9.2010 fhat father of fhe petitioner is an employ^; in West Jhagarakhand ColUery only since 2.3. 1977 and flie appUcant has not placed any dociimentary evidence or any Idnd of evidence or proof to show fhat he was resident of ftie State of Chhattisgarh as in the year 1950. The ofiicer further considered ttiat no other proof was submitted by ftie petitioner before (he Talisildar, Manendragarh and fherefore having found that fhe petitioner has not proved fhat he was resident of fhe State of CKhattisgarh as in fhe year 1950, application has been rejected. He further :?-^~ !" '~^SS». ;;: v;,^ (•^/ -3- submitted fhat fhe Coiut had directed to pass a^propriate order without insisting on production of land records prior to year 1950 and it was not fhe order of the Court that it is not necessaxy to provereg^trding residence as in tfae year 1950. 5. Leamed comel for the respondent furttier submltted that ffae respondent has clearly recorded in his order dated 2.6.2011 tliat m case fhe petitioner is able to establish by leading appropriate evidence, including fhe evidence that he or h^ father was resident of fhe area now comprising Chhattisgarh since year 1950, his claim wotdd be reconsidered. 6. After considering fhe submissions made by leamed counsel for the parties, I find that mitiaUy the Sub Divisional Offlcer ^ssed an order on 25th January, 2011 (Annexure C-4), in wMch, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner faUed to adduce any documentary or oral evidence ofhe being resident of Qhhattisgarh as tn fhe year 1950. It appears ftiat later on, the respondent has initiated proceedings and on 2.6.2011, has passed an arder fhat even after adducing evidence, the petitioner could nat estabMsh that he was resident of Chtiattisgarh as in the year 1950 and therefore the caste certificate caimot be issued. It has also toeen observed that in case the petitioner is able to submit proof, his case would be reconsidered. 7. Irrespective of whether fhe order passed ly respondent suffers from Ulegalily or not, takuig into consideration the manner in which the case ofthe petitioner has been decided by respond^it - F- -4- Sub Divisional Officer, I am unable to hold that fhere was any act of willful disobedience, particularfy, in view of subsequent proceedir^s which have been drawn by fhe respondent I am therefore not inclined to proceed further in the matter. 8. The rule is fherefore discharged. However, ftae petitioner would be at liberty to challenge fhe legality and validity of order dated 25th January, 2011 and all ofher orders and proceedtngs, including the order dated 2.6.2011, tn tiie appropriate proceedings. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen