Disposed¶25

Surendra Agrawal v. Punit Verma

Chhattisgarh HC21 Apr 2025CONT/550/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CONT No. 550 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 22.04.2025 by Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (single-judge bench); Surendra Agrawal v. Punit Verma, Chief Municipal Officer, Sakti; contempt petition regarding non-decision on petitioner's representation despite order dated 06.11.2024 in WPC No. 5503/2024 which carried a 90-day expectation; Court held the earlier order was an expectation, not a direction; respondent directed to decide in accordance with law within 30 days; petition disposed of; NAFR; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of with a direction to the respondent to take a decision in accordance with law within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order; petitioner at liberty to apprise the respondent of the order. ¶25

Surendra Agrawal Vs Punit Verma — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date: 2025.04.23 16:12:22 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:18037

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CONT No. 550 of 2025

¶7

1 - Surendra Agrawal S/o Mohan Lal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Baigapara, Sakti Boirdi, Distt.- Sakti (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Punit Verma Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Sakti, Distt- Sakti (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sudhir Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

22.04.2025

¶17

Mr. Ashish Tiwari, though has received advance copy of the contempt petition, but he has no instruction from the respondent.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 06.11.2024 passed in WPC No. 5503/2024, this Court has expected that the respondent/competent authority in the said writ petition shall take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner herein, within a period of 90 days from the date of

¶19

¶20

submission of the representation. He further submits that the petitioner apprised the respondent with regard to the order passed by this Court, however, no decision has been taken till date.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document.

¶22

From perusal of the order dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure C/1 herein), it appears that this Court has not directed the respondent to decide the representation whereas, it was expected by the Court that the respondent shall take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioners. It appears that in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondent has not decided the said application submitted by the petitioner.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the respondent herein to take a decision in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

The petitioner is at liberty to apprise the respondent with regard to the order passed by this Court.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation, the present contempt petition is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶28

Shoaib

Surendra Agrawal v. Punit Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Agrawal v. Punit Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manharan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shanti Hota Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gulab Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemsagar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gajendra Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durga Prasad Dhirhe Vs Punit Verma