Dismissed

Onkar Singh Sahu v. D.R. Bhagat and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Nov 2011CONT/299/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged a fresh transfer order as willful disobedience of a previous quashed order and a government circular. The court found the violation was due to a misconception and relieved the applicants with a warning instead of contempt punishment.

What did the court decide?

Relieved the applicants from contempt proceedings; warned respondents not to repeat the conduct; ordered transcript of order to be read.

Onkar Singh Sahu Vs D.R. Bhagat and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

<~^, c^'

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR.H^AT BILASPUjl si " 9l8*• - --—=-Benel aA ^^,, CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. 2.53 OF 2011. -

¶3

APPLICANT

¶4

Onkar Singh Sahu, S/o. Shri Uday Ram Sahu, aged about 49 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Duglipara, Block Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RESPONDENTS CONTBMNORS

¶7

;1. D. R. Bhagat,

¶8

Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari

¶9

(C.G.)

¶10

Deepak Anandikar, Block Education Offlcer,

¶11

^TT

¶12

Nagri, Dhamtari, District

¶13

Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶14

C^NTEMPTCASE (C) UNDERARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READWITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

¶15

y ^

¶16

The applicant named above begs to submit as under:

¶17

./-/

¶18

•^sf ^qrqMq, 'Sxri^PTS, fsRirey

¶19

- C^'^(c')^^Q/Zy\ | 206

¶20

gn^l !R<S (ipiy^,

¶21

wnsn^ignite		aBmfeTiihwrcS4-feiar ri^CTfi' ^; atR"']'sn^r
	SB : Hon'ble Shri ManindraWlohan 02-11-2011	Shrivastava. J. .
	None forthe petitioner, even in ShriAkhilesh Kutnar, counsel fi	Heard.
	This petition has been filed disobedience of order dated 05-1 W.P.(S)No.4582of2010. The case of the petitioner, aggrieved by order oftransfer dated 1 petitioner, whoat that point of time, order dated 05-10-2010, in batch of ^ the petitioner, final order was pass quashed by the Court. However, with the respondent No.2 issuedorder d relieving the petitioner on the basis of	quashed by the Court. The said orcj instructions dated 11-08-2011 issued l Learned counsel for respond were quashed bythe Court holdjng th^
	06-2010and Rule 8 (vi) ofthe Censu^ circular prohibited transfer without coi ( the order passed by this Court, no orders have been passed for relieving fairly admits that the order.which wa to, unless a fresh order was passed a( respondents, now an order has beenj by which, earlier order dated 11-0	Rules, 1990. Hesubmits that as the lsent till 31-03-2011 in compliance of ransfer was effected, but thereafter, Learned counselforthe respondents cancelled, could not be given effect id when thisaspectwas noted by the iassed on 05-09-2011 & 06-09-2011, i-2011 and 16-08-2011 have been

¶22

WHBR ?NN jjiiuiii-iii, troiUmg—ys/140—2/2011—i,50,ooo.

¶23

./^

¶24

1ii y / •%,.-.-'".<"' Y,

¶25

-:fS( ^nrqRTO, 'gTTJTTiT®^TsRTCTy

¶26

a^'wfei^	an^l <^%('yf1! 'RmwwtasiAa	^'' "^200 '-eFiHf '
'tTOan^i'a^iR;	-2--	•firafeTft1? iffeiar •fsi^i): ^?s:fvian^i
IP TumarB	cancelled. He submitsthatthe mistak orderofthe Court, buttherevas no int whteh is reflected the fact that the pe 2011. Once an order of transfer ^ respondents had no authority togh/e e whatsoever. From the replyandthedoc recoid, it appearethatthe r^pondent^ meanthattill31-03-2011, notransferc^ dated 15-07-2010 was quashed on W Sub-rute (vi) ofRule 8oftheCensus R 2010, the order could nct be presse< 2011, requirementtoseekconsentdid would have beentopassafreshordert by giving efFect to, which has b^n	cautton is expectedfromtherespondel Court'sorder. Consklering that the relievirf 31-03-2011 and further that the reliev^ by the respondents, contempt procee(f are dropped, however, with avrarning Rule istherefore discharged. The petitton isfinallydispos«l<t

¶27

- —.-L_.

¶28

sireTtW ^ftiT gsiiRRT, irasrti!?rt3—l'S/140—2/20II —1,S0,00fi.

¶29

Onkar Singh Sahu v. D.R. Bhagat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onkar Singh Sahu v. D.R. Bhagat and Anr.

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

Narendra Das Vs Smt.Pratima Das and Anr.

Swapna Lahari Vs C.K. Khaitan and Another

Shatrughan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharti Rathore and Others Vs S.L. Adile

Jaiprakash Shukla Vs Shivratan and Ors.

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