1 CGHC010266792025 2026:CGHC:27842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1004 of 2025 Harish Kumar Kawre S/o Late Shri K. Potti Kawre Aged About 39 Years R/o Qtr. No. H-29, Gad Colony, Avarabhatha, Dantewada, District- Dantewada (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus Shahla Nigar Principal Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Animal Husbandry Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Adv. (Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 6-7-2026 1 This contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been preferred by the applicant alleging non-compliance of the order (Annexure C-1) dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No.1956/2024. 2 The operative portion of the order under contempt passed in the aforesaid writ petition reads as under:- “3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the 2 case, the concerned Superintending Engineer, Department of Public Works, though he is not a party in this petition, is directed to look into the matter and ascertain as to whether the work allotted to the petitioner or not and whether the work in question has been done by the petitioner or not. The entire exercise be done after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and by conducting spot inspection. On completion of the enquiry, submit a detailed report before the respondent No.1/Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Animal Husbandry Development Department. Thereafter, on the basis of the said report submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Department of Public Works, the respondent No.1 shall take necessary steps." 3 Respondent has filed reply. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, in compliance with the aforesaid order, the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Jagdalpur conducted an enquiry into the matter and submitted his enquiry report dated 8-2-2026 before respondent No.1 in the aforesaid writ petition. After considering the enquiry report, respondent/respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 30-6-2026. Thus, according to the respondent, the directions issued by this Court have been duly complied with. 4 During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent has produced order dated 30-6-2026. The same is taken on record. 3 Learned counsel is also directed to file copy of the same during the course of the day. 5 Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents of the writ petition have derived the benefit of the work executed by the applicant but have failed to release the outstanding amount payable to him. It is, therefore, contended that the order of this Court has not been complied with in its true letter and spirit. 6 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7 A perusal of the order dated 07.01.2025 passed in WPC No.1956/2024 clearly reveals that this Court had directed the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit his report before respondent No.1 in the writ petition. It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent that, pursuant to the said direction, the Superintending Engineer submitted the enquiry report (Annexure R-2) dated 08.02.2026, and thereafter respondent No.1, upon consideration of the said report, rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 30.06.2026. Thus, the directions contained in the order dated 07.01.2025 stand complied with. 8 If the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2026 rejecting his claim, it is always open for him to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. However, such grievance cannot be adjudicated in the present contempt proceedings. In the 4 considered opinion of this Court, once the directions issued by this Court have been complied with, no case of willful disobedience is made out against the respondent. 9 Consequently, the rule issued against the respondent is discharged and the contempt proceedings are hereby dropped. 10 Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.07.08 13:16:20 +0530