Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46439 (CHH)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA v. DR. KAMALPREET SINGH SECRETARY

CONT/18/2025 · 2025-04-25

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:18837 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 18 of 2025 1. Pramod Kumar Mishra S/o Late Ramvilas Mishra Aged About 52 Years R/o Pratappur Naka Saheli Gali Ambikapur Tehsil And Police Station Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 2. Chandra Pratap Tiwari S/o Ramnaresh Tiwari Aged About 52 Years R/o Pratappur Naka Saheli Gali Ambikapur Tehsil And Police Station Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 3. Ratibhan Kushwaha S/o Ramlakhan Kushwaha Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Karkoti Bhaiyathan Tehsil And Police Station Bhaiyathan Distrit - Surajpur (C.G.) 4. Dilip Supkar S/o Late Banshidhan Supkar Aged About 60 Years R/o Pratappur Naka Saheli Gali Ambikapur Tehsil And Police Station Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1. Dr. Kamalpreet Singh Secretary Department Of Public Works Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) (Contemnors) 2. K.K. Pipri Engineer In Chief Department Of Public Works Nirman Bhawan North Block Sector - 19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. N.K. Jayant Chief Engineer Department Of Public Works Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 4. K.P. Sant Superintendent Engineer Department Of Public Works PWD Circle Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 5. Virendra Choudhary Executive Engineer Department Of Public Works Jashpur Division District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents 2 Cause title is taken from the Case Information System For Petitioner : Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Siddhant Das, Adv. appears on behalf of Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 25/4/2025 1. The petitioners filed the present contempt petition for alleged defiance of the order dated 5-1-2024 passed by this Court in WPS No.3509 of 2016. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ contemnors would submit that vide order dated 6-8-2024 (Annexure-C/6) the case of the petitioners has been considered and rejected the representation dated 17-1-2024 and, as such, the order of this Court has been complied with. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on perusal of the order dated 6-8-2024, it is manifest that the same has not been passed in the letter and spirit of order dated 5-1-2024 passed in WPS No.3509 of 2016 because while deciding the writ petition this Court has directed the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in the light of circular dated 5-3-2008 and in the light of decisions rendered in the matters of Tukaram v State of CG and others, 2017 LawSuit (Chh) 649; Radhe Lal v State of CG and others, 2019 LawSuit (Chh) 24; and Uttara Bai and others v State of CG and others, 2022 LawSuit (Chh) 866. Despite the said fact, without considering the same and without applying the law laid down in 3 the aforesaid matters, the representation of the petitioners has been decided in a mechanical and cavalier manner. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. From bare perusal of the order dated 6-8-2024 (Annexure-C/6), it is quite vivid that albeit the respondents have decided the representation of the petitioners, but the same has not been done in terms of the order passed in WPS No.3509 of 2016 and the case laws referred therein. 6. In view of foregoing, the respondents/contemnors are again directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners afresh in terms of the order passed in WPS No.3509 of 2016 and the case laws referred therein i.e. Tukaram (supra), Radhe Lal (supra) and Uttara Bai (supra), and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the contempt petition is disposed of. 8. It is made clear that if the representation is not considered and decided by the respondents/contemnors in the manner as stated supra, the petitioners would be at liberty to file a contempt petition afresh. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.04.25 17:13:48 +0530