1 2026:CGHC:21752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 571 of 2025 Chitranjan Masih S/o Milan Masih Aged About 64 Years R/o Behind Agrawal Transport Jarhabhata Bandhiya Para, Police Station Civil Lines, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Pravesh Painkra Sub Divisional Magistrate City Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Lakeshwar Prasad Kiran Tahsildar And Executive Magistrate Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 08/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its power under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1973 and calling upon the contemnor/ respondent to appear before this Hon'ble Court 2 personally and after giving them opportunity of hearing punish them for breach/ deliberate violation of the order dated 13.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3323/2017 and contemned case(c) 1154/2018 order dated 13.11.2028 by awarding appropriate punishment and allow this contempt petition, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order dated 13.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3323/2017 and the subsequent order dated 13.11.2018 passed in Contempt Case (C) No. 1154/2018, the contemnor/respondent has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court and has shown complete disregard to the orders passed herein. The continued non-compliance on the part of the contemnor/respondent is wilful, deliberate and intentional, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for which the contemnor/respondent is liable to be proceeded against and punished in accordance with law. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. On perusal of the order passed in the writ petition, it is apparent that a direction was issued to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to consider and decide the petitioner’s application, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously. The said order was passed in the year 2017. 5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order was communicated to the concerned authority, however, on going through Annexure C/5, it appears that the representation/application was addressed to the Collector and not to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who was required to comply with the order. In absence of any material to 3 demonstrate that the order passed by this Court was specifically brought to the notice of the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, this Court is not inclined to hold that there has been any wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 6. Moreover, the direction sought to be enforced pertains to the year 2017, whereas the present contempt petition has been instituted in the year 2026, i.e., after more than nine years. Such inordinate delay also renders the present contempt petition not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the contempt petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul