High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/1035/2018disposed off

Rambaran Singh Tomar v. M.S. Kerketta

2019-04-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT NO. 1035 OF 2018 Rambaran Singh Tomar S/o Badan Singh Aged About 58 Years Subject Matter Specialist-3, Office Of The Sub Divisional Officer, Agricultural Officer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

M.S. Kerketta Director, Directorate Of Agriculture Labhandi Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Shri Anoop Majumdar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 16.04.2019

1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the order dated 15.05.2018 passed in WPS 3513 of 2018.

2. The direction given by this Court was for the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner. The contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the order dated 15.05.2018. The respondents have entered appearance and have filed two documents. One dated 28.09.2018 whereby the intimation has been given to the petitioner with his representation that he had filed for against adverse entry made in the ACR in the years 20132014 and 2016-2017 after due consideration has been rejected. The respondents have filed another document 22.02.2019 again addressed to the petitioner which shows that in pursuant to the directions given by this Court in WPS 3513 of 2018 dated 15.05.2018, the representation pending of the petitioner were duly considered and intimation in this regard, was also sent to the

petitioner both for the period 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 and also for 2014-2015 and 2017-2018 and the intimation which were also sent to the petitioner.

3. Given the fact of the case that the respondents principly have taken a decision to reject the representation of the petitioner this Court is of the opinion that the substantial order passed by this Court on 15.05.2018 stands complied with.

4. If at all if the Petitioner is not satisfied with the said decision, the remedy left with the petitioner is to challenge the same by way of fresh proceedings as the veracity of the subsequent order passed/tested under the contempt jurisdiction which otherwise can be looked into only in writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Reserving the same liberty, the contempt petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-d/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyoti