Dismissed

Baidyanath Tiwari v. a. N. Upadhyay

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jan 2016CONT/485/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an earlier order dated 24.02.2015. The court found that the representational matter was decided by a speaking order dated 25.03.2015, which substantially complied with the earlier directive.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed and the contemnors were discharged from contempt proceedings.

Baidyanath Tiwari Vs a. N. Upadhyay — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Cont. Case (C) No. 485 of 2015

¶4

Baidyanath Tiwari, S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Tiwari, aged about 59 years, Resident of Police Training School GE Road, Rajnandgaon, PS Basantpur, Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

AN Upadhyay, Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, District Raipur (CG).

¶8

Pradeep Gupta, Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, District Durg (CG).

¶9

Shri P. Ekka, Superintendent of Police, Police Training School, GE Road, Rajnandgaon, PS Basantpur, Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice P.Sam Koshy

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

08/01/2016

¶15

Alleging non-compliance of order dated 24.02.2015 passed by this court in Writ Petition (S) No.550 of 2015, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition.

¶16

According to the Petitioner, immediately after the writ petition was disposed of, the petitioner has moved a representation along with copy of order passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 550 of 2015 before the concerned authority, but till date the same has not been decided, and therefore, he has filed this contempt petition.

¶17

Counsel for the respondents entering appearance on notice being issued, submitted that infact the representation of the petitioner has already been decided by a speaking order dated 25.03.2015, a copy of which has been placed before this court for perusal and has also been provided to the counsel for the petitioner present in the court.

¶18

In view of the fact that order of this court dated 24.02.2015 for deciding the representation of the petitioner stands substantially complied with by order dated 25.03.2015, nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon in this contempt petition. However, the petitioner is not precluded from challenging the said order dated 25.03.2015, if he so chooses.

¶19

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. The Contemnors are discharged from the contempt proceedings.

¶20

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE

¶21

inder

Baidyanath Tiwari v. a. N. Upadhyay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baidyanath Tiwari v. a. N. Upadhyay

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

Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Ram Swarup Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Learn Nature Consultants Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Pankaj Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Mongare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Avaneesh Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh