Disposed¶20

Ram Bisal Devdas v. Mohd. Imran Khan

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2026CONT/8/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; CONT No. 8 of 2021; contempt petition disposed; Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge; order dated 09.07.2026; writ appeal WA No. 473/2025 by State against writ petition order pending; SLP pending before Supreme Court in similar facts; interim order dated 31.01.2024; liberty to petitioner to file appropriate proceedings after appellate decision; petitioner Ram Bisal Devdas, retired pump operator; respondents Mohd. Imran Khan (Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Raipur) and P.R. Vishwakarma (Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Mahasamund).

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings after the decision of the writ appeal filed against the order, subject matter of the contempt petition. ¶20

Ram Bisal Devdas Vs Mohd. Imran Khan — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

1 / 2

CGHC010297702020

2026:CGHC:28777

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CONT No. 8 of 2021

¶7

Ram Bisal Devdas Son Of Late Punit Ram Devdas Aged About 64 Years Retired Pump Operator, Resident Of Sardar Ballabh Patel, Ward No. 8, Dadhi Para, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Mohd. Imran Khan Posted As Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - P.R. Vishwakarma Posted As Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

		... Respondents
For Petitioner	:	Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	:	Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate
For Respondent no. 2	:	Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

¶13

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

09.07.2026

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that against the order, subject matter of this contempt petition State Government has preferred a writ appeal bearing WA No. 473/2025. He also submits that

¶17

2 / 2

¶18

in the similar facts of the case against the order passed in the writ petition State has preferred a writ appeal which was dismissed and against which State has preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is pending consideration and according to his instructions, an interim order has also been passed on 31.01.2024.

¶19

On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective respondent which is not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that no purpose will be served in keeping this contempt petition pending.

¶20

Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings after the decision of writ appeal filed against the order, subject matter of the contempt petition.

¶21

Certified copy as per rules. sd/-

¶22

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶23

Alfiza

Ram Bisal Devdas v. Mohd. Imran Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bisal Devdas v. Mohd. Imran Khan

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

Kishan Giri Goswami Alias Nitra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar Patel Vs Union of India

Hem Singh Dhruv Vs Mohd. Imran Khan

Royal Travells Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Lal Shrivastav Vs Mohd. Imran Khan