1 / 3 2026:CGHC:25921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 794 of 2021 • Judawan Gabel S/o Mahettar Gabel Aged About 43 Years Janpat Area No. 02, Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda, R/o Village Bundeli Tehsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus • Smt. Chameli Bai Kawar Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bundeli Janpat Panchayat Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 24/06/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 15.09.2021 passed in WPC No. 3730/2021. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent-contemnor when holding the post of Sarpanch a proceedings under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 was initiated against him. Initially, the SDO passed an order under Section 40 against the contemnor which travelled up to the High Court in WPC No. 3730/2021. High Court while partly allowing the writ petition has made specific observation restraining the respondent from taking any policy decision or to carry out financial transaction till appeal is finally disposed of by the Collector. The order passed by the High Court was informed to the SDO, Sakti as also to PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 Secretary of village panchayat Bundeli, Janpad Panchayat, Malkharouda on 16.09.2021 but even thereafter respondent-contemnor has withdrawn a sum of amount of Rs. 2,04,551 on 20.09.2021 and thereby has committed contempt of the order passed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for respondent opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the order passed in WPC No. 3730/2021 came to knowledge of respondent-contemnor for the first time on 24.09.2021 when contemnor Sarpanch was informed by the office of Janpad Panchayat, Malkharouda vide its letter dated 23.09.2020. Prior to this the contemnor was not having knowledge about the order passed by this Court of a direction to Respondent No. 5 not to carry out financial transaction and another. He also contended that the document which is filed along with covering memo by the petitioner to submit that the order was informed to the Secretary on 16.09.2021 in view of signature appearing is not matching with the signature of the Secretary as forming part of Annexure R-1. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with contempt petition. 5. The contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 15.09.2021 passed in WPC No. 3730/2021. In the contempt petition no document is enclosed to show that contemnor was informed about passing of an order dated 15.09.2021 in the writ petition. After notice, respondent- contemnor has submitted reply specifically taking a defense that she was not aware of passing of the order prior to 24.09.2021. However, in the rejoinder also, there is no specific mention about submitting letter informing the order dated 15.09.2021 to contemnor. Further, the letter written to SDO which is submitted by the petitioner along with covering memo dated 24.06.2026 would show that letter was submitted in the office of SDO and copy of which is handed over to the Secretary. 3 / 3 6. If the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is to be accepted, the direction is not to carry out financial transaction is upon Respondent No. 5 therein/ contemnor herein. In the documents also, there is no receipt of the contemnor. Any person can be held liable of committing contempt of the court’s order, when it is proved that the said person has willfully disobeyed the order of the Court. In absence of the proof of information/ knowledge of the order passed by the Court to the contemnor in person prior to the date of bank transaction, it cannot be presumed that the contemnor herein was informed by any of the authority or person before 20.09.2021 about passing of the order with a direction not to carry out financial transaction. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find no good ground to continue with this contempt petition any further. 8. Accordingly, contempt proceeding initiated against respondent is dropped, notice issued to respondent is discharged and the contempt petition is accordingly closed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE