Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34508 (CHH)

PRAKASH CHAND PATEL v. AVINASH CHAMPAVAT

CONT/1043/2025 · 2025-07-14

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:33083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1043 of 2025 1 - Prakash Chand Patel S/o Makardhwaj Patel, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Chhuchhubhatha, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Avinash Champavat Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Amrit Vikash Topno Collector Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 3 - Baleshwar Ram Sub Divisional Officer (R) Dabhra, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Priyanka Mehta Executive Engineer Pwd, Division Sakti District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apoorva Nigam, on behalf of Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 15/07/2025 1. Petitioner has filed present contempt petition against willful violation of order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPC- 99/2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is orally ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.07.16 19:03:03 +0530 2 representing his case before the authority concerned, and on 23.06.2025, he moved his representation before the respondent for compliance of the order dated 15.01.2018 but his representation has not been considered by the authority concerned. 2. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that no court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 3. In the present case, the petitioner has claimed that order dated 15.01.2018 has not been complied with by the authority concerned, which apparently barred by limitation as provided by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. Accordingly, present contempt petition stands dismissed. Sd/-d/-- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok