1 2025:CGHC:42864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1296 of 2025 1 - Sanjeev Soni S/o Shri Rajendra Soni Aged About 29 Years R/o M.I.G. 28, Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shri Sanjay Agrawal The Collector Officer Of The Collector District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Amit Kumar Posted As Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Of Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Anil Tiwari Posted As District Education Officer Cum (Secretary) District- Rationalization Committee, Office At District Education Officer Old Composite Building District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Shri Sandeep Agrawal Posted As Chief Executive Officer (Zila Panchayat) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. Heard. 2. This contempt petition under Section 12 of contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by petitioner because of non-compliance of the order dated 2 17.06.2025 (Annexure- C/1) passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP(S) No. 4796 of 2025, wherein the co-ordinate bench has passed the following order in para 5 & 6 as under:- “5. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is directed to make fresh representation before the concerned District Rationalization Committee within a period of five days from today, and appear before the said Committee on 23rd June, 2025. Thereafter, the Committee shall decide the representation of the petitioner within seven days from the date of receipt of representation in accordance with law, in objective manner. Till decision on the representation is communicated to the petitioner(s), the impugned transfer order issued under Teacher Rationalization Instructions, so far as petitioner(s) is/are concerned, be kept in abeyance. 6 With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in aforesaid order, the Co-ordinate bench has specifically directed respondents to decide representation of petitioner in objective manner. He would further submit that though vide impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure- C/2), the committee has decided representation filed by petitioner and the same has been rejected, but it has not been considered in objective manner. Hence, the contempt notice may be issued to respondents. 4. Perusal of operative portion of the order under contempt shows that vide aforesaid order, the co-ordinate bench has directed to decide the representation filed by petitioner within a period of seven days in objective manner. Vide order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure-C/2), the 3 committee has decided representation filed by petitioner and rejected the same. Whether, it has been decided in objective manner or not, could not be a subject matter to be decided by this Court in contempt petition, rather, it is a beyond purview of this Court to consider aforesaid fact in this contempt petition. Hence, I do not feel inclined to entertain instant contempt petition, therefore, the same is dismissed. 5. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.08.26 10:56:18 +0530