Sudhir Kumar v. Mr. A.P. Panda

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Contempt Case (C) No. 1120 of 2019 • Sudhir Kumar, aged about 23 years, S/o Late Fagua, By Caste Uraon, R/o Koriya Colliery, Chirmiri, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Mr. A.P. Panda, Chairman cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Mr. Babban Singh Chief General Manager, Chirmiri Area, Chirmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 11.12.2019 1.

The alleged contemptuous action on the part of the Respondents in giving effect to the verdict passed by this Court as per Annexure C/1 dated 09.07.2019, is the subject matter for consideration in this proceeding. 2.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had submitted an application for getting appointment under compassionate scheme. After attaining majority, necessary application was submitted by the Petitioner, but the same was turned down, which made the Petitioner to approach this Court

by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 3066 of 2019. Interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed with reference to inordinate delay. However, when the matter was considered by this Court, an opportunity was given to the Petitioner to produce all the relevant documents before the authorities concerned and to have it considered accordingly, within the time as stipulated therein.

3.

Pursuant to the said judgment, the matter was considered and the application came to be rejected again as per Annexure A/4, which is more with reference to the alleged delay on the part of the Petitioner, and hence the Contempt of Court proceedings.

4.

After hearing and after going through the materials on record, we find that the issue was not decided on merits by this Court, but for expressing some observation with regard to the nature in which the matter had to be considered, of course, granting an opportunity to produce relevant documents. If the Petitioner is aggrieved of Annexure P/4, it is always open for the Petitioner to have it challenged by filing appropriate proceedings before this Court. 5.

Without prejudice to rights and liberties in this regard, interference is declined. The contempt matter stands dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan