[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Gend Singh Rajput vs Shri Basavaraju S. (Ias) Secretary on 28 August, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:43611
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CONT No. 881 of 2022
1 - Gend Singh Rajput, S/o Late Shri Mithu Singh Rajput, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o Working As Assistant Revenue Inspector,
Municipal Council, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Shri Basavaraju S. (IAS), Secretary, Department Of Urban
Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492101.
2 - Shri Remigius Ekka, Director, Director, Urban Administration
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492101.
3 - Jitendra Bahadur Singh Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal
Council, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
2
For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
(Order on Board)
28.08.2025.
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide order
dated 17.12.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.10693/2019, the
respondent authorities were directed to consider and decide
the petitioner’s representation within a period of three
months from the date of submission of representation. The
petitioner submitted the representation on 30.12.2019 and
the same was decided by respondent authorities on
25.05.2022, as such, there is willful disobedience of the
order of this Court.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondents/contemnors has filed a copy of order dated
25.05.2022, whereby the representation of the petitioner
was duly considered and rejected due to non-availability of
post of Assistant Revenue Inspector in Municipal
Corporation and there is no provision for sanctioning the
post separately only for absorption, for which unconditional
apology in respect of the delay that was unwittingly
3
occasioned in following the directions was tendered.
Learned counsel also submits that in the instant case the
alleged contempt took place when the period of three
months from the date of submission of petitioner’s
representation dated 30.12.2019 received on 08.01.2020 –
ended either on 30.03.2020 or 08.04.2020, the limitation
period for filing a contempt petition in relation to the High
Court’s order ended on 30.03.2020 or 08.04.2021. The
instant petition filed on 25.08.2022, as such, the same is not
maintainable in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of
Courts Act. Learned counsel also submits that the order of
this Court has been complied with even before the filing of
the instant petition. As regards delay in compliance,
learned counsel placed reliance on the decision dated
19.08.2025 of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of A.K.
Jayaprakash (Dead) Through LRs. v. S.S. Mallikarjuna
Rao and Another [Cont. Pet. No. (Civil) Nos. 1002-1003
of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.s 6732-6733 of 2009], whereby
Hon’ble Apex Court held that delay in compliance without
willful intent does not amount to contempt of Court. Thus,
the instant contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
4
material available on record.
4. Admittedly, vide order dated 17.12.2019, this Court directed
the respondents/contemnors to decide the representation of
the petitioner within three months from the date of
submission of representation. The petitioner moved
representation 30.12.2019, which was decided by the
respondents/contemnors on 25.06.2022 and the contempt
petition was filed on 25.08.2022, i.e. the representation of
the petitioner was decided before filing the contempt
petition.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of A.K. Jayaprakash
(supra) held in paras 16, 17 and 18 as under :-
“16. The question that arises for consideration is
whether the delayed compliance constitutes
willful disobedience so as to attract the
jurisdiction of Court under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
17. In Ashok Paper kamgar Union v. Dharam
Godha and Others1, this Court has held that
contempt jurisdiction is intended to uphold the
majesty of law and not to settle personal
grievances. Similarly, in Rama narang v.
Ramesh Narang and Another2, in a case of civil
contempt, the breach must be deliberate and1(2003) 11 SCC 1
2(2006) 11 SCC 114
5intentional.
18. Tested on the anvil of the above principles,
we find that although the Bank did not effect
payment within the time permitted by this Court,
the material placed on record do not demonstrate
that the delay in compliance was borne out of
any wilful or contumacious intent. The
explanation tendered refers to administrative
hurdles post-merger and retrieval of records
dating back over three decades. While such
circumstances cannot justify laxity in complying
with orders of this Court, the element of mens
rea, essential for sustaining a chare of civil
contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the
factum of delay.”
6. Insofar as the decision on the representation of the
petitioner within three months is concerned, it is evident that
two orders dated 25.05.2022 of Deputy Secretary and
15.06.2022 of Joint Director, Director of Urban
Administration and Planning, were passed to decide the
representation of the petitioner that too after hearing oral
submission of the petitioner and the same were
communicated to him, before filing the instant contempt
petition. Thus, there is no willful intent and delay in
compliance of the Court’s order and the same does not
6
amount to contempt of Court.
7. For the reason aforesaid, the contempt petition is disposed
of.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
pekde
Digitally signed by
VIJAY BHARATRAO
PEKDE
Date: 2025.08.28
16:42:08 +0530
[ad_2]
Source link