1 / 3 CGHC010259252025 2026:CGHC:31328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 918 of 2025 S.R. Hospital And Research Center (A Unit Of S.R. Health Care Services Pvt. Ltd.,) Through Its Director Namely Sanjay Tiwari S/o Late Shri Sudhakar Tiwari, Aged About 48 Years, S.R. Hospital And Research Center, Village- Chikhli, Post Jeora Sirsa, Dhamdha Road, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Shri Amit Kataria (Senior I.A.S.) The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Dr. Smt. Priyanka Shukla (Senior I.A.S) Director, Department Of Health Services, 'swasth Bhawan' Directorate-Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Siddhant Kumar Das, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 22/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although notice was issued to respondent No. 2, no reply or affidavit has been filed on his behalf. It is further submitted that the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by this Court in WPC No. 2636 of 2024 has not been complied with. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that a reply has been filed along with a copy of the communication dated JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.23 16:57:02 +0530 2 / 3 21.08.2025 to demonstrate that the directions issued by this Court in WPC No. 2636 of 2024 have been duly complied with in its true perspective. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that an affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 stating that the order passed by this Court has been complied with. The affidavit is accompanied by the communication dated 21.08.2025 evidencing compliance. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner raises an objection that since no notice was issued to respondent No. 1 in the present contempt proceedings, the reply filed on its behalf ought not to be taken into consideration. 6. Be that as it may. 7. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 was a party to the earlier writ petition as well as the present contempt proceedings. Although the direction was to ensure compliance of the order passed in the writ petition, the communication dated 21.08.2025 placed on record clearly indicates that the action taken was initiated and forwarded by respondent No. 1. Thus, merely because the reply has been filed in the present proceedings in the manner objected to by the petitioner, it cannot be held that there has been any wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 8. It is further evident from the record that, in compliance with the order passed in WPC No. 2636 of 2024, the petitioner's 3 / 3 representation has been duly considered and decided by the competent authority. Once the direction issued by this Court has been complied with, the correctness or legality of the decision so taken cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction. 9. In view of the aforesaid, no case of wilful disobedience is made out. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed. 10. Rule is discharged. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti