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 2]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Kasturi Sharaf Soni vs Rajesh Sukumar Toppo 38 Cont/122/2018 ... on 16 February, 2018

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                                                   NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         CONT No. 373 of 2016

     • Smt. Kasturi Sharaf (Soni) W/o Shri Basant Kumar Sharaf, Aged
       About 64 Years, Retired Assistant Teacher Balak Ashram
       Orachha, District- Narayanpur, Presently R/o- At Vill. / Post-
       Sarkho, P.S.- Naila, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.,

                                                           ---- Petitioner

                                 Versus

     1. Rajesh Sukumar Toppo Presently Working As Commissioner,
        Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department
        Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     2. Dharmpal Saini, Presently Working As President Mata Rukmani
        Sewa Sansthan Samiti Dimarapal, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, And District-
        Bastar, Chhattisgarh

     3. Smt. Karuna Shah, Presently Working As Secretary Mata
        Rukmani Sewa Sansthan Samiti Dimarapal, Tahsil- Jagdalpur
        and District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

     4. Director Public Instruction Chhattisgarh       Raipur,   Indrawati
        Bhawan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                        ---- Respondents

For Petitioner Shri Ashwani Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1 Shri A. S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 Shri Prafull Bharat, Advocate For Respondent No.4 Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 16/02/2018

1. Shri Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for the contemnor No.4 would seek apology on behalf of the contemnors for the delay in deciding the petitioner's representation. He would submit that the contempt now stands purged.

2. In view of the above, the contempt petition is disposed of with observation that the respondents shall remain careful in future. The petitioner may challenge the order rejecting his representation by way of a fresh writ petition.

Sd/-

Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Nirala