High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/729/2021dismissed

M/S Agrawal Oil Agency Bagbahara v. Doman Singh Ias

2021-09-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 729 of 2021 M/s Agrawal Oil Agency Bagbahara through its Partner Rupesh Agrawal S/o Late Shri V. S. Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Subhash Marg, Bagbahara Police Station and Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (M/s Agrawal Oil Agency is a Registered Firm under the Provisions of Firm and Societies Registration Act) --- Petitioner

Versus

1. Doman Singh Ias Currently Posted as Collector, Mahasamund Collectorate Campus Tahsil and District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

2. Himshikhar Gupta IAS (was posted at the time of passing order) Currently posted as Special Secretary and RCS at Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Office Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For the Petitioner :

Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board .09.2021

1. This instant petition is filed for contempt of the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by this Court in WPC No.1766 of 2021 wherein Para 3 reads as under:

"3. Considering the copy of the order sheet which are on record and perusal of the documents would show that the certified copy has already been applied, however, it has not been supplied, it is directed that respondent no.3 shall supply the copy of the order which is passed in Case No.117/B-121/2014-15 in between M/s. Agrawal Oil Agency Vs. State of Chhattisgarh within a further period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order".

2. Learned counsel submits that thereafter copy of the order

has been supplied, which does not bear the signature and seal of the Collector which is placed on record.

3. Having considered the fact, it is observed that the copy of the document has already been supplied, so what would be the effect of the said document if it has not been signed is a separate issue and it is not a subject to be adjudicated in this contempt. The petitioner may have to go in for another litigation because of the fact that it is not a case that the order in the revenue case which was directed to be supplied has not been supplied. Considering the same, no deliberate disobedience of the order is made out. Accordingly, this contempt petition is rejected.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao