Anand Kumar Gupta v. Anand Prakash Ekka

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No.198 of 2016 • Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Late Atri Lal Gupta, Aged About 52 Years R/o Purana Bazaar Para, Behind Dhaan Mandi, Post P. S. & Tehsil Surajpur, Revenue & Civil District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Anand Prakash Ekka Posted As District Education Officer Surajpur, Revenue And Civil District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)

2. G. R. Churendra, Posted As Collector Surajpur, Revenue And Civil District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).........(Contemnors) ---- Respondents None for the parties, even in the second round. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 27/01/2017 None for the parties, even in the second round. 2.

This contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 17-09-2015 passed by this Court in WPC No.1618 of 2015. In the petition, it has been stated that though while disposing off the writ petition recording that there was no merit in the case, this Court directed certain facilities to be provided. It is the allegation that despite the order of the Court, various facilities have not been provided in the educational institution and the order passed by this Court has been violated. 3.

The respondents in their return have stated that a committee was constituted for physical inspection and works with regard to infrastructure and the committee was directed to submit a report, after due inspection and verification. Thereafter, the Committee in its report has stated that there are enough room facility, drinking water facility, lavatory facility, electricity facility, play ground and boundary wall facilities were available in the school. It has also been stated that the work has been completed.

Relevant documents have already been placed on record. 4.

In the rejoinder, it has been stated that water line connection has not been provided from Municipal authorities.

5.

Having perused the material on record, particularly taking into consideration the inspection reports prepared by the committee, it cannot be said that there is willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 6.

Considering that the inspection has been carried out by the committee of number of officers, I am not inclined to proceed further in the matter. Rule is discharged.

7.

In the result, the petition is closed.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane