Dismissed

Ramsay Sahu and Ors. v. Vivek Dhand

Chhattisgarh HC4 Nov 2011CONT/196/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Heater dismissed a contempt of court petition filed against a State officer for willful disobedience in delayed compliance with a judicial direction. The Court found the delay excusable due to state machinery and function issues.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was disposed of on the ground that the delay was due to the machinery of the State function and procedural issues.

Ramsay Sahu and Ors. Vs Vivek Dhand — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

¶3

THE^HON'BLE^HIGH CQURT^^CHHArTKGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Contempt Case(rt/'u^f) N0. l5^ /2011

¶5

:TITIONERS 1. Ramsay Sahu ;; ry-^ ^ Aged about 31 Years, S/o Shri Balduram Sahu,

¶6

r^ R/o Gram and Post-Goghana Tehsil- Nawagarh /\ District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^y^ •<•• ^^^^Y 2. Rajkumar Sahu

Aged about 32 Years

S/o Shri Bhulturam Sahu,

¶12

R/o Gram and Post- Godhna Via

¶13

Kharod District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

Manishankar Kashyap

Aged about 32 Years

S/o Shri Hiralal Kashyap,

¶18

R/o Gram and Po'st- Salkhan Via

¶19

Kharod District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

Vivek Dhand

¶22

ESPONDENT: Vivek Dhand ONTEMNOR) Aged about 57 years S/o Not known to the petitioners

¶23

Presently posted as Principal Secretary

¶24

Panchayat and Rural Development

¶25

tf-Department, D.K.S. Bhawan

¶26

Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G..)

¶27

PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT RE/SD WITH _ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA ^

¶28

~^?^^^s "s

¶29

XI-HC—78

¶30

	(Wy(T Sb1lcb 'S'ST -^ww^, y-dly'Ko, f ..^.ri.....C.^ sn^T'WK ('^?iguT	s)ciiyy,< ..C^.../..^/^o ^i) *' '^regn
an^r^ii-fiFfh? "?raf 3TT^T^W!^		ii<I<lf4)-<i?praf4fstS ^rsiRnaii^fi
\|SB ; Hon'ble Shri Manindra clarif tl 4.11.2011 ShriMateen Siddiqui, SbriShrijithC. S. Nair,	Heard onadmissien. This contempt petitio^ aUeging wiUful disobedience c inW.P. (S) No.6880/09, M.C.C. No.379/2010. Learned counsel for order was passed in. writ p< clarified in M.C.C. 379/201) representation was made to 16.8.2010 alongwithfhe cop directions of(he Courtwere and request was made to 4 possible. However, fhe matte was taken on the sionths stipulated by the file fhe iastant petitionon 11 issued by fhls Court on 21.' officer subordinate to resp0]j (Annexure R-1) decidingthe ri c representalj Co s e > spoi	BBohari Shrivastava, J. ied ie i jl 3 j j ) ii

-1-.

..>"

-!e:'3ES^S^>. '' •^^^'••. 'lfe. .f

¶35

'-'&,...•' s»-»Xl-HC—78

¶36

75T "41'41d<4, •ES^I^I'Ko, lq<?1iyy

¶37

••W^ 200

¶38

311^1^I Iti-li* W!I3II^[ st>»<	S^ tTTOT (^qfy^ TOiiw^tosii^i 2	q) 'tiWfci'il-f Hllilf^fsIZt <i^1t{]< ^aiRii?aii^i
	apolo On fhe other hand, referring to fhe avenaents representation was subinit^ considered and, fhereafterj representation has been dec Court. He further submits representation was not fiuictioning offhe uuier the delay of about 7 iaoi respondent prays for respondent would be carefiil wifh.fhe orderofthe Court. The reply of the respo received on 16.8.2010. Ui representation was required monfhs i.e. on or before representation has been dec^ and fhereasonshownfor suc functionaiy and procediiral fhe Court is quite vague. It is few days. There is no specific delay in deciding the represer is caused due to the fiinctioi sordid state ofaBairs. Ithas ft ir niac a ; t	^y i f ( j

^' ^>

XI-HC—78

'3^ "41Alld-4, "^xftOT^, (s«'liyi<

¶43

••W^ 200

¶44

	an^ipRTC^fg.i^	i) ti^ff^i ^{-w^}^f^fi
311^1^ilf^fe ^TSff 3TI^T^^*lict>	TOiIWBfCT 311^1 -s-	.c- s <r»<<;< ^ratfinaii^i
EraveeQ	orders of fhe Court have ^ stipulated. Though, itwould ^ each and eveiycase as to wh^ tfae of&cer-respondent in dec iatentionalor bona fide due U fhatserious steps have not bej fhe case of fhe petitioner wif case of the respondent that circLuiistances, decision coul( approached with any prayer f< into consideration fhat fhe r apology has been tendered be proceed further infhe matter. care is required to ensure fhai compUed with, butincases wl compUedwithwithiathe stipu] finds fhat fhere is som.e rea delay, whatis expected is fhat prayer forextensionoftime rat fhe contein.ptpetitionis filed. Wifh the aforesaid obse fhepetitionis finaUydeposed o	iot beeri complied within fhe tiine epend on facts and circumstances of tfaer delay was beyond the control of jidiag fhe case and whether it was some vaUd reasons, fhis Court finds intakeninthepresentcase to decide tun the tune stipulated. It is not fhe ^ecause of some uievitable delay or

¶45

¶46

Ramsay Sahu and Ors. v. Vivek Dhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsay Sahu and Ors. v. Vivek Dhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Pandey and Others Vs State of M.P. Now C.G. and Others

Satish Goenka Vs Ramavtar Agrawal

Amit Kumar Minj Vs Dr. Kamal Preet Singh

Ganga Gilhare and Others Vs Sunil Kumar and Another

Bodhram Panigrahi and Ors. Vs Shri K. R. Pisda

Smt.Hiramani Vs Smt. Nisha Mishra and Ors.