Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Nand Kishore Prasad vs Shri Arvind Prasad Panda 50 ... on 6 September, 2018

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                           1

                                                                              NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               CONT No. 929 of 2018

     1. Nandkishore Prasad, S/o Late Shri Shiv Prasad Singh, aged about 58
        years, R/o House No. 304, Phase - II, Gitanjali City (Bahtarai Road), Police
        Station - Sarkanda, Post -office S.E.C.L. District Bilaspur (C.G.)
     2. Premdhar Singh S/o Late Shiv Prasad Singh, aged about 55 years, R/o
        House No. 304, Phase - II, Gitanjali City (Bahtarai Road), Police Station -
        Sarkanda, Post -office S.E.C.L. District Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                                      ---- Petitioners

                                       Versus

     1. Shri Arvind Prasad Panda, then - the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
        S.E.C.L., Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)

     2. Shri Santosh Kumar Paul, then - The Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L.
        Gevra Project, Gevra Area, Korba, District Korba (c.G.)

     3. Shri Avinash Shukla, then - the Nodal Officer (Revenue), S.E.C.L., Gevra
        Area, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

     4. Shri Rakesh Kumar, then - the Nodal Officer (Revenue), S.E.C.L. Gevra
        Area, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

                                                     ---- Respondents/ Contemnors

For Petitioners : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 06/09/18

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 01.02.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 564 of 2008, the order has been passed by the S.E.C.L. on 23.06.2018 but it has not been passed in strict compliance of the Court's order.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Be that as it may, since the order has been passed by the S.E.C.L. rejecting the application of the petitioners and that has been challenged in the duly constituted writ petition, there is no ground to entertain this 2 contempt petition.

4. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed with no order as to cost(s).

SD/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka