2025:CGHC:34518 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1098 of 2025 Abid Shah S/o Bali Mohammad Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Chumra, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mrs. Richa Sharma Secretary Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Mantralaya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Alok Kumar Bajpai Forest Divisional Officer Forest Division Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajendra Kumar Katara Collector, Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - Santosh Kumar Pandey Sub Divisional Officer (Forest) Balrampur District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Pradeep K Jogi, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. The present contempt petition is filed for willful violation of the order dated 23-04-2024 (Annexure C-1) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2185/2024, whereby the direction to decide the representation of the petitioner within six months was given to the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed a writ petition for the consideration of allotment of Van Adhikar Patta and for quashing of the notice dated 22-02-2024. After hearing the parties, the coordinate bench of this Court has passed the order on 23-04-2024, directing Cont 1098 of 2025 2 the petitioner to move a representation/application before the concerned forest authorities in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and the authorities were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within 06 months, from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petitioner had made a representation but the same has not been decided till date, which amounts to willful violation of the Hon’ble Court’s order and contempt proceedings may be initiated. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. Relevant part of the order dated 23-04-2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2185/2024 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not moved any application according to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 2006, but at the same time, Section 4(5) of the Act of 2006 subsequently says that “no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete.” Therefore, at this stage, this petition is disposed of with a liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to make proper application before the appropriate forest authorities in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 2006. If, the petitioner move such application before the concerned forest authority/authorities, the same would be considered strictly in accordance Cont 1098 of 2025 3 with law, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order”. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the authorities have not decided the representation/application of the petitioner as per the direction made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the document Annexure C-2 and would submit that the petitioner had made his application to the authority. From perusal of the document Annexure C-2, it transpires that there is no date or acknowledgment that the same was actually made before the authority. The petitioner could not even state in his contempt petition as to which date the application was made to the authority. When there is a specific direction to move the application before the authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 2006, then the petitioner is required to show that the application was actually made before the authority. The document Annexure C-2 cannot be considered to be an application made before the authority, particularly in the absence of any date or acknowledgment of it. If no application is made by the petitioner, the authority is not bound to pass any order, and therefore, the petitioner could not establish that there is any willful violation of the order or deliberate avoidance of the order passed in W.P.C. No. 2185/2024, dated 23-04-2024. 6. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the document dated 19-05-2025, filed by the petitioner on 21-07-2025, along with the covering memo, which is the application made to the authority on 19-05-2025. Even if it is taken as the application made by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 23-04-2024 passed in W.P.C. No. 2185/2024, the 06 months’ time Cont 1098 of 2025 4 is not lapsed, so that it can be said that the authority has not passed the order on the application of the petitioner. 7. From perusal of the entire material produced with the petition, this court does not find any willful or deliberate violation of the order dated 23-04-2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.C. No. 2185 of 2024. Accordingly, the contempt petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma