IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR cc^zr Contempt Beta^&^No. ^f ^/2010 PETITIONER ingl9<®8BW ^avindra Kumar Roy S/o Shri Y.B. ( Roy, aged about 44 years, Junior \- \^A' _ . . . _..<.. ^v Engineer, Durgkondal Distribution '^' j^P^.^ Centre under operation 85 maintenance ....••••:.^'|L\ ^t' \v- L.—..'T 1 RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR u. Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution company Ltd. Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS Shri S.D. Diwan, Chief Engineer (O&M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur(C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WIT^SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT. HC-22 3?7^T^T f^W3Tlt?T $^^w ^f^a / — i ^' -^sf ^WM^, ^W^o, ^^wy. an^r ^SR Cff^^PV Q,?e/c9NV.9y^/o r"M ^Mdl 5h^|cb ^•E^T' 'STT^T 1^<TY^R ^rf^T SB : Hon'bje Shri Manindra MoM ct-der 13-01-2011 Shri R. K Gomasta, couns^l Heard. Learned counsel for the earlier transferred vide order datetl to challenge in Writ Petition No.1: passed on 16-07-2002. He subm| 2009, the said writ petition was dis^ dated 16-07-2002, the transfer authorities to pass order, if adr) petitioner was also granted libertyl salary for the intervening period. order of the Court, the petitioner Engineer on 09-03-2010 followed 2010 praying that he may be (x>ste|d quashed by this Court vide order not been complied with till date. to contempt of order dated 03-07-2p Learned counsel for the interim order was passed by this| favour ofthe petitioner, even befor^ and in fact on 03-07-2009, when petitioner was not posted at this fact on 03-07-2009. As the pef places during the pendency of Kawaridha chl^fd^'l 'RPraf ^ 'fe1^ ipsl^K ir a^TRf W^T n Shrivastava. J. for the petitioner. pe|:itioner submitted that the petitioner was 27-05-2002 which order was subjected 3|55 of 2002 wherein an interim order was ts that later cn vide order dated 03-07- )osed off and in view ofthe interim order was quashed giving liberty to the |iinistrative exigency so warrants. The to make representation in respect of the |.earned counsel submitted that after the ^ubmitted a representation to the Chief ()y reminders on 23-02-2010 and 13-04- at Bodla, as order oftransfer has been jfated 03-07-2009 but the said order has Le^med counsel submits that this amounts -2(309. |3etitioner fairly submitted that though Court on 16-07-2002 granting stay in for^ that the petitioner was already relieved ^rit i^tition was finally disposed of, the A?ar1dha. This Court was not informed about titioner has been transfen-ed to different tjhe wit petition and was not aotualty [^ -Sfeq 1 /' STl^T^T f^iwsnt^T 5t^+iic^ ^n Tumane -^ET -4t<t|id^, ^Tl1y4l<S, ^i<ni<Hli< ^SiFS.s^-^'° ^I^C^l^bHlch 'fN^ST' 3'T^T '^<rI^R -yf^a 'z- continuing at Bodla, even though,| it cannot be said that the petitionel', be sent back to Bodla. Thereforel oaseofcontempt Petition is therefore dismiss^d. <=hl^(<yl^vl WR^ff ^ 'ft^t iF^^K ^T'sri^W 3TI^T the order of transfer has been quashed, r, as a matter ofcourse, was required to in the opinion of this Court, it is not a ,^brivastava ^anindra^^ r^ -sfeq