High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/11/2020dismissed

Bharat Lal Chandrakar v. Rajat Kumar Bansal

2020-01-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 11 of 2020 • Bharat Lal Chandrakar S/o Late M.L. Chandrakar Aged About 80 Years R/o Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

1. Rajat Kumar Bansal, IAS, Currently Posted As Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

2. Jitendra Kumar Kurre Currently Posted As Deputy Collector Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, The Then S.D.M. Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

3. Smt. Yogita Dewangan Currently Posted As S.D.M. Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

4. Bhupendra Kumar Gavare Currently Posted As Tahsildar, Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Applicant :

Shri Aakash Yadu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 08/01/2020

1. Heard.

2. On the earlier occasion in WPC No. 1298 of 2019 on 15.04.2019 the following order was passed:-

2. Perusal of the document filed along with petition i.e. Annexure P-3 specially shows that on complaint the action has been taken against the respondent No. 6 & 7 and notices were issued. As such the issue is pending adjudication. Be that as it may, the proceeding commenced in the year 2017 therefore,

without any observation on the merits, it is directed that the proceedings which has been started by respondent No. 5 against respondents No. 6 & 7 shall be completed within a reasonable period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.

3. Now, the present petition is filed for contempt wherein 4 persons have been arrayed as contemnors. Repeated query raised to the learned counsel for the petitioner that as to who is the person to whom the direction was made i.e. Chief Municipal Officer, Kurud whether he is in the array of contemnors, it is replied that the demolition has to be ordered by the Collector and he is unable to satisfy the fact as to who is Respondent No. 5 to whom specific directions was made in WPC No.1298 of 2019 in the array of contemnors in the present contempt petition. The contempt petition, therefore, appears to be vague and in absence of answer to the query of the Court, this Court has no option except to dismiss the contempt petition as the contempt petition is untenable for want of proper party.

4. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Jyoti