1 2026:CGHC:21751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 94 of 2025 Dr. Rakesh Gupta S/o Shri Sardari Lal Gupta Aged About 63 Years R/o Near R.C. Industries, In Front Of New Bus Stand, Main Road Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh . Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Arun Kumar Mishra Presindent Of Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council, Anand Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 492006 2 - Shri Ashwani Gurdekar Registrar Of Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council, Anand Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 492006 Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 08/05/2026 1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the interim order dated 06.12.2024 passed by this Court in WPC No. 6002/2024, whereby the effect and operation of the communication/order dated 18.11.2024 was stayed till the next date of hearing. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.05.08 18:29:43 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid interim protection granted by this Court, the respondents are still proceeding further in the matter relating to cancellation of the petitioner’s membership. Referring to Annexure C/4, it is submitted that a meeting of the Council was again convened on 03.01.2025 with regard to the issue pertaining to the petitioner’s membership and, therefore, the conduct of the respondents amounts to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there has been no violation of the interim order passed by this Court. Referring specifically to paragraph 7 of the reply, it is submitted that after passing of the interim order dated 06.12.2024 in WPC No. 6002/2024, the respondents did not proceed further in the matter relating to cancellation of the petitioner’s membership. It has further been stated that since the order dated 18.11.2024 had already been withdrawn/cancelled vide communication dated 13.12.2024, the agenda dated 19.12.2024 was intended for consideration of restoration/providing membership to the petitioner. It has also been specifically stated that upon receipt of notice from the counsel for the petitioner, no decision was taken in the meeting held on 03.01.2025 and the agenda was kept in abeyance till legal opinion was obtained in the matter. It is, thus, submitted that no case for initiating contempt proceedings is made out. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the reply filed by the respondents. 3 5. It has been specifically stated in para 7 of the reply filed by the respondents as under:- “It is submitted that, in so far as agenda of meeting dated 19.12.2024 (Annex. C-4) is concern, the Council was about to take into consideration for again providing membership to the applicant herein, because vide order dated 13.12.2024, the order of cancellation of membership of the applicant was withdrawn/cancelled, but, in this regard, the Council has received notice, issued from the counsel of the applicant, therefore on 03.01.2025, i.e. the date on which meeting was convened, the Council, did not take any decision and the said agenda is kept in abeyance till the legal opinion is obtained in this regard. ANNEXURE R/1 is the copy of the letter dated 19.12.2024 along with minutes of meeting dated 03.01.2025” 6. From a perusal of paragraph 7 of the reply, it appears that though an agenda with respect to the petitioner’s membership was circulated for consideration in the meeting dated 03.01.2025, however, no final decision was taken by the respondents in the said meeting and the matter was kept in abeyance. The respondents have further stated that after passing of the interim order dated 06.12.2024, they have not proceeded further in respect of cancellation of the petitioner’s membership. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, merely because an agenda for consideration of the issue pertaining to the petitioner’s membership had been circulated, the same by itself would not constitute wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court, particularly when no further action appears to have been taken pursuant thereto. 4 8. Accordingly, no case for proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act is made out against the respondents. Rule discharged. Contempt proceedings are dropped. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul