High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/485/2015dismissed

Baidyanath Tiwari v. A. N. Upadhyay

2016-01-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cont. Case (C) No. 485 of 2015 Baidyanath Tiwari, S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Tiwari, aged about 59 years, Resident of Police Training School GE Road, Rajnandgaon, PS Basantpur, Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. AN Upadhyay, Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, District Raipur (CG).

2. Pradeep Gupta, Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, District Durg (CG).

3. Shri P. Ekka, Superintendent of Police, Police Training School, GE Road, Rajnandgaon, PS Basantpur, Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondents Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P.Sam Koshy Order On Board 08/01/2016

1. Alleging non-compliance of order dated 24.02.2015 passed by this court in Writ Petition (S) No.550 of 2015, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition.

2. According to the Petitioner, immediately after the writ petition was disposed of, the petitioner has moved a representation along with copy of order passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 550 of 2015 before the concerned authority, but till date the same has not been decided, and therefore, he has filed this contempt petition.

3. Counsel for the respondents entering appearance on notice being issued, submitted that infact the representation of the petitioner has already been decided by a speaking order dated 25.03.2015, a copy of which has been placed before this court for perusal and has also been provided to the counsel for the petitioner present in the court.

4. In view of the fact that order of this court dated 24.02.2015 for deciding the representation of the petitioner stands substantially complied with by order dated 25.03.2015, nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon in this contempt petition. However, the petitioner is not precluded from challenging the said order dated 25.03.2015, if he so chooses.

5. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. The Contemnors are discharged from the contempt proceedings.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE inder