Radha Bai v. R.P.Mandal and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal examined whether the Tribunal was guilty of contempt for failing to pass the order pursuant to the High Court's direction. The petitioner contended that the respondent authority did not follow up on the order dated 19.03.2010 despite a communication on 19.10.2010 stating benefits would be considered. The Tribunal discharged the rules, noting the communication did not specify an exact
What did the court decide?
Rules discharged treating the communication dated 19.10.2010 as compliance of the court's order.
What the court decided
IN THE Hl(3H:COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
(CHHATTISGARH) ^'&
Contempt Case (Q No. /°^ /2010.
| (Arisingout ofgrderdated 19.03.10 passed in writ petition (S) No-f4329/2009 by Honlsle High Court.) PETITIONER: ^Smt.RadhaBai, wife ofDevnath Singh ^,. ^ / ' Chouhan, aged about40years, Head C^" Mistress, Primary School Farsakani, ^y^^^r^ BlockKunkuri, DistrictJashpur, ^ ^a*'a'" . ^^ °'p. J^< ^^y.-^ ^«^-^~ ^v^..^ ^ ^ ^"" fS^" 'ir- Respondents: (Contemnorsl: Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. R.P.Mandal, Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh. |
|---|
| 2. Dr.B.S.Anant, Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. |
| 3. Dr.Lalit Shukla, Assistant Commissioner, TribalWelfare Department, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh PresentlyPosted asAssistant Commissioner, TribalWelfare |
| DepartmentKorba, Chhattisgarh. 4. Dhani RamBhagat, BlockEducation Officer, Kunkuri, DistrictJashpur, Chhattisgarh. (^ CONTEMPT PETITION UNDERARTICLE215 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTI01L12 OFTHE CONTEMPTOF COURTSACT. The petitionermosthumblybegs to submitasunder:- |
^
y/
I-HC-22
s '^-•^s^
1 ^^yP^
^-
^^r -^{pn^zr. ^Til^^^ f^ray ^ 3ff^?r ^^K
^....(^nt.:...^..^^/^
^RI^IClT Sh^scts
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was guilty of contempt by failing to pass the appropriate order as communicated by the respondent authority.
Whether the communication dated 19.10.2010 in which the respondent offered benefits without specifying a date amounts to a compliance of this Court's order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Radha Bai
- respondent
R.P. Mandal
- respondent
Dr. B.S. Anant
- respondent
Dr. Lalit Shukla
- respondent
Dhani Ram Bhagat
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Chhattisgarh HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- CONT/185/2010
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court