XI-HC—78 3^£T^1<410^, ^Tfl^^KS, (cf01-9^< (^ _.CfflMt.....l:?.A.....!.lG/' "qro^T ^^•^•^—••••'••••^—•-.v"-1-^""^ 200 7 3n^?T ^T9? ( ^eli^^) 3?I^T ^FT "f^H^ ^^TW^T^RNT ^ """^ ¥^TTW^rf^T^l^T PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS/: (Contemnors) Versu^ 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. <^Nt<vl<fll 'HTR^Jf '^\fe^rt <fa^l< ^^fRw^n^r Bhajan Lai Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Rammanorath Lal Agrawal, aged about 56 years, R/o New Shanti Nagar, Raipur (CG) Mr. Subhodh Singh, Coilector, Raipur (CG) Mr. Manoj Kant Kesharia, A,S.L.R. Ralpur, O/o Coilectorate, Raipur (CG) Mr. Pramod Sharma, Revenue Inspector, Land Division of Pandari Area, Raipur (CG) (a) Smt Jyoti Singhaniya, W/o Gajendra Singhaniya, R/o House No. 12/262, Subhash Road, Raipur (CG) (b) Smt. Alka Singhanita, W/o Pradeep Singhaniya, R/o House No. 12/262, Subhash Road, Raipur (CG) Kishan Lal Daga, S/o Mohan Lal Daga, R/o Halwai Line, Raipur (CG) Smt. Shanti Devi, Wd/o Vishnu Prasad Kashyap, R/o Pandari Tarai, Raipur (CG) Raj Kumar Nathani, Dinesh Nathanj, S/o Buiaki Das Nathani, Edward Road, Raipur (CG) Navratan La! Agrawal, S/o Late Daulat Ram Agrawal, Samta Colony, Raipur (CG) XI-HC—78 'S^f ^W\<^)^, ^rf1^jl<S, is)^l^^< 41*id( sbU|l<*» 200-7 aii^T'(^•^ (i^l^^) 3??T^T ^FT'f^H^' ^TT 'STI^T $FRN?> ^" ^I-N^ '^7TW^fi<T ^TI^T 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. (Contempt petition underArticlei Section12ofthe B1-8-2007 Mr. Sunil Sahu, counsel forthe) petitioner. Heard. Today the matter is listed on ^ause titie for adding the names of |of address of respondent No.13. Perusal of the contempt p^t |naintainable. This contempt petition j j/ide order dated 16-1-2002 (Anne^ ^bservation that "iet the parties maint chNfd^l-1 *iM<viT^fe^ <P>i^i< i^^iRR^^r Sarala Baj Jomin, W/o Omdutt Sharma, R/o Rajhara, Durg, at present New Shanti Nagar, Raipur Chandan Bai, Wd/o Ugrasen @ (Khokhepur) Murdagiya present name Kundan Prajapati, R/o New Shanti Nagar, Raipur (CG) Savitri Devi, W/o Karni Das, R/o Choubey Colony, Raipur (CG) Anil Kumar, S/o Paresh Nath Chatterjee, R/o New Shanti Nagar, Raipur (CG) Nirmala Bai, W/o Bhavji Shah, Rama Bai, W/o Bharunji Shah, R/o, [15 of the Constitution of India read with pontempt of Court Act) Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice LC. Bhadoo [.A.NoJ, application for amendment in the re^pondents No.14 & 15 and for amendment ^tition shows that the petition is not juvas filed with the averment that this Court ^we C-1) passed an interim order with ^ain status quo, as it exists today. In this XI-HC—78 3=CTT ^|<4|^, ^TfiyKo, fs|<7'>l<-l^< ^— 1TPTCT' $h^icr» •^ 2007? sn^T^^iw 'd^? 'SH^T $ft*iicr» ^nu'""^ ^ 3^?r T^ra? (^1^<^) ^TcHW^<T ^TI^T view of the matter, let the operatio|r kept in abeyance, as it existed on ^- 1 have perused the order d^1 by which the Court while disposin^ result, this petition is disposed of before the learned S. D.0. withinl appeal, the learned S.D.O. sh^i expeditiously. Delay, if any, is B.P. Sharma, learned counse! foii interim order may be allowed. T| Appellate Authority. However, passes appropriate interim orders), exists today. In this view of the m( dated 21-9-2001 be kept in learned Appellate Authority passes) By this order, while dispo^ ailowed to file an appeal before the| Learned counsel for the pef filedon 24-1-2002. In the natural course, the Appellate Authority to decide ap{ expected time from the date of filir months. It appears that tiJI today, learned counsel for the petitioner ar time, as per the contempt petition, names in collusion with respond< already been raised. In the first jr cdndoned" Until cbl^fd^l^ 'HW^ ^fel^t ^R(R$R ^ 3?tRR 3?n^r of the impugned order dated 21-9-2001 be -11-2001". ted 16-1-2002 passed in W.P.No.2097/2001 of the said writ petition observed that "in the /vlth direction that the petitioner shal! appeal ten days from today. On recelpt of such proceed to decide the case on merit it was further observed that "Shri the petitioner makes a prayer that certain lis aspect should also be examined by the the Appellate Authority considers and let the parties maintain status quo, as it ^tter, let the operation of the impugned order ^nce, as it existed on 9-11-2001, until the |appropriate orders in this regard". [ing of the writ petition, the petitioner was |S. D.0. within ten days from 16-1-2002. |itioner submits that the appeal was already ^etitioner ought to have pressed before the (lication for interim stay wjthln reasonable ^g of appeal i.e. maximum within one or two :^e stay appjication has not been pressed by rbd no order has been obteined. In the mean |respondents No.7 to 13 have mutated their shts No.1 to 3 and some construction has Istance, no date has been mentioned as to abeyfence XI-HC—78 3n^I^Tl^iW 'H^T 3?TT^T ^*ilct> ^ ^ ./ Barve ^ 3^5T^TPn^T, ^cft^FR, (slcOt^y 4 TTpmr wv^^.G^....E>^........m^ ^ Sn^TTRSR (^^^) •^T^R ^f^T 3??^f uchl^i<rt4^ "Wraf ^fe^^fa^R ^'37fW'3RT^r whcn they raiscd uonsirucnon. It has not been mentioned that as to why appjjcation for interim stay has n|?t been pressed before the S.D.O, in spite of this Court order dated 16-1-200^. This Court aliowed ten days' time to file appeal before the S.D.O. and as a^i interim measure granted status quo so as to enable the petitioner to obtain or|der^^w^pB^I from the S.D.O., but even after lapse of more than five yeai[s & six months time the order has not been obtained. The order dated 16-1-2J302 was not passed for indefinite period, this is rather misuse ofjudicial process} The petitioner has not been able to make out a caseto initiate contempt proceedings against the responjlents, as such, the contempt petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stanjls disposed of. L.C. Bhadoo Judge