1 2026:CGHC:23377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 131 of 2017 1 - Santosh Namdeo S/o Late Shri Khorwahra Namdeo, Aged About 55 Years R/o Sheetla Ward No.19, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sudesh Kumar Singh Thakur Chief Municipal Officer, Kawardha Municipality, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anil Sahu S/o Late Shri Salikram Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Behind Old Municipality Building, Darripara, Ward No.26, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Dev Narayan Kashyap, Sub Divisional Magistrate Revenue, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh .................Contemnors, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1. : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent No.2. : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Anurag Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent No.3. : Ms. Parwati Suryawanshi, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.05.18 16:06:27 +0530 2 Order on Board 15/05/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition alleging willful disobedience of order dated 10.11.2016 passed in WP (PIL) No.91/ 2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, observation made by Division Bench of this Court in para-3 of the order which is subject matter of the contempt petition has not been complied with. He also submits that there was a direction to Sub Division Officer (R) to give notice of the appeal to the petitioner therein also, however the appeal was decided without issuance of notice to the petitioner. He however fairly submitted that appeal filed by respondent No.5 herein ultimately got dismissed. He next contended that in para-3, there is specific direction that respondent No.5 therein shall not raise any further construction on the land in question, but from photographs annexed along with the contempt petition as compared to the photographs annexed along with the writ petition, it appears that further construction has taken place and the Chief Municipal Officer, Kawardha has not taken any steps for restraining respondent No.5 therein from raising further construction and thereby respondents have committed contempt of order passed by this Court. 3 3. Mr. 3 3. Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would vehemently opposed the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submits that order passed in WP (PIL) No.91/ 2016 has been complied in its words and spirit. After passing of the order no construction has been permitted to be made by respondent No.2 herein who is respondent No.5 in the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that after passing of the order in the writ petition, respondent No.2 has not made any construction over the superstructure which was already constructed on the date of passing of the order. 5. Ms. Parwati Suryawanshi, counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submits that as directed by this Court the appeal submitted by the respondent No.5 therein was considered on merits and have expeditiously disposed of dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent No.5. 6. I have heard counsel for the respective parties. 7. So far as the first submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given notice of hearing of the appeal pending before Sub Division Officer (R) is concerned. Considering the fact that appeal submitted by respondent No.5 in the writ petition have ultimately dismissed on merits, I am not inclined to proceed on that pretext to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent No.3, when he 4 complied with the order passed by this Court and expeditiously considered and concluded the proceedings dismissing the appeal filed by respondent No.5. As ultimately the objection of the petitioner would be to dismiss the appeal submitted by respondent No.5 as having no merit. There was substantial compliance on the part of respondent No.3. 8. So far as the second submissions made by counsel for petitioner that the petitioner continued with the construction activities even after passing of the order which is subject matter of contempt is concerned, I have perused the photographs which is annexed along with writ petition and its stage of slab level in one part of alleged construction activity. In one part it appears that the shutter has also been installed, though at that time it appears to be incomplete. The writ petition was filed on 27.09.2016. The photographs might have been taken before filing of the writ petition a week or two before, as it can be presumed because no date is appearing in the photographs filed along with writ petition. The order subject matter of the contempt was passed on 10.11.2016 i.e. about more than one and half months from the date of filing of writ petition. 9. Considering the intervening period from the date of taking photographs of the alleged construction over the superstructure raised by respondent No.5 and the date of passing of order, it may be possible to complete constructions till the stage as it is 5 reflecting in the photographs annexed along with the contempt petition. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that thereafter the construction has not been continued by the respondent No.5. 10. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when there is possibility to complete construction as projecting from the photographs enclosed along with the contempt petition within the intervening period from the date of taking photographs which is part of writ petition, till the date of passing of the order, I do not find any good ground to continue with this contempt petition any further, accordingly, the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents is dropped, notice is discharged, and the contempt petition is closed. Sd/-d/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi