High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/229/2020dismissed

Shridhar Kumar Chandrakar v. Amarnath Dubey

2020-02-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 229 of 2020 • Shridhar Kumar Chandrakar S/o Manharan Lal Chandrakar Aged About 27 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Amarnath Dubey Chief Municipal Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

2. Mahesh Naik Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ___________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 20/02/2020

1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 04.05.2016 passed in WPC No.1176 of 2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even though, there was specific direction given by this Court vide order dated 04.05.2016 in the matter of determination of petitioner's claim, no orders have been passed in compliance of the said direction.

3. I am afraid, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner lacks merit. There was no direction given by this Court to any of the authorities in the manner as has been contended before this Court.

4. The writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier was an offshoot of another writ petition WPC No.1017 of 2014 filed by one B.P. Bisai. This Court had to clarify in para-4 of the order that no finding has been recorded with regard to number and area of the land of either the petitioner or respondent No.5 or anyone else. The observation was made that the respective claims are matters of consideration by the Collector and not by this Court. The observation made in para-5 of the order that the claim of the petitioner shall require consideration

by the competent authority in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in WPC No.1017 of 2014, as it stands, is not a direction to any authority. These observations cannot be construed as directions or mandate to any party to take decision on any issue.

5. This contempt petition is misconceived and is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Ravi