1 2025:CGHC:2098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1491 of 2024 1 - B.V. Naolekar S/o Late V.G. Naolekar, Aged About 81 Years R/o C-27, Lokmanya Parisar, Goal Chauk, Rohinipuram, P.S. Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Dr. Priyanka Shukla Director Technical Education (Former), Swasthya Bhavan, Sector 19, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chattisgarh. ... Respondent For applicant : Mr. Neelkanth Malviya, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. This contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been preferred by the applicant for non-compliance of order dated 25-6-2024 passed in WPS No. 2621/2014. 2. Vide order (Annexure C-1) dated 25-6-2024 passed in WPS No. 2621/2014, this Court passed following order in para 6, 7, 8 and 9 as under :- “6) From a perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the representation made by the petitioner was decided by a non-speaking order contrary to the order dated 13.12.2013 passed in WPS No.4186 of 2013 by respondent No.2 /Director, Technical Education and in a Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.01.17 11:13:25 +0530 2 very cryptic manner the representation made by the petitioner was rejected. 7) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by respondent No.2 / Director, Technical Education Chhattisgarh is hereby quashed. 8) Respondent No. 2 is directed to pass an appropriate order on the representation filed by the petitioner taking into consideration the Circular dated 16.09.2010 in an objective manner, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, though representation filed by the applicant has been decided, but that representation has not been decided considering the circular dated 16-9- 2010 (Annexure C-4) issued by the Technical Education Department, therefore, contempt case is made out against the respondent. 4. In reply, learned counsel referring to Annexure C-3 dated 20-9-2024, which is a communication made to the applicant informing rejection of his representation, would submit that, the representation filed by the applicant has been decided in the light of Circular dated 16-9-2010 (Annexure C-4). He further submits that the order under contempt has been complied with, therefore, this contempt petition is not maintenable. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available 3 on record. 6. Perusal of Order (Annexure C-1) under contempt dated 25-6-2024 passed in WPS No. 2621/2014 shows that the writ petition was disposed of directing respondent No. 2 therein to pass appropriate order on the representation of applicant in the light of circular (Annexure C-4) dated 16-9- 2010. The representation of the applicant has been decided and the same has been rejected by respondent vide Annexure C-3 dated 20-9-2024. Thus, order under contempt has been complied with. In this contempt petition, merit and demerit of the order passed by the respondent/Director, Technical Education cannot be considered, therefore, I am not inclined to proceed further in instant contempt petition. 7. If applicant is not satisfied with the order dated 20-9-2024 passed by the respondent, then such fact gives fresh cause of action to the applicant, it could not be termed as non-compliance of order passed by the Court. Therefore, he may take recourse of law for redressal of his grievance, if any. 8. This petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak