IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 114 of 2008 Smt. Hema Bajpai ….Petitioner Versus Prituesh Singh and another …Respondents. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Dated: December 22, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This contempt petition, under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for taking the action against respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for violating the direction issued by this Court in its order dated 18.7.2005 in W.P. No. 224 (M/S) of 2001(Annexure- 1) and 12.4.2006 in W.P. No. 361 (M/S) of 2006 (Annexure-4). Heard Sri Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. In order to assess the certain aspects of the matter, I summoned respondent no. 1, who is Tehsildar, Haldwani, District Nainital, at present, along with original record of the case. The record indicates that land in question was given in possession of the petitioner including other persons on 22.05.2007 by the predecessor of respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 has also clarified this aspect in paragraph- 15 of the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out various aspects of the matter, but I am of the view that all the aspects submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner relate to merits of the case. It is nothing to do with the matter whether respondent no. 1 is liable for committing contempt of the Court or not. Respondent no. 1 is present personally in the Court and he has submitted that he took over the charge as Tehsildar, Haldwani, on 19th October, 2007. This submission indicates that on 22.05.2007 when the possession was handed over to certain persons including petitioner, respondent no. 1 was not on his post of Tehsildar, Haldwani. On the basis of aforesaid, I am of the view that no contempt of the Court is made against respondent no. 1. Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed. Notice issued against respondent no. 1 is hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP