Salooni vs Smt. Nisha Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4342 HP

.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,

SHIMLA ON THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2022

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

CIVIL ORIGINAL PETITION CONTEMPT No.139 of 2022

Between:

RAVI DUTT S/O SH. CHET

RAM, R/O VILLAGE JILLOH, P.O. DREKDI, TEHSIL

SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.

....PETITIONER.

(BY MR. RAJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SMT. NISHA SINGH,

ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (PACHAYATI RAJ), GOVERNMENT OF

HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

2. SH. RUGVED MILIND THAKUR, DIRECTOR (PANCHAYATI RAJ), GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.

3. SWATI GUPTA, SUB­ DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.

    4. NISHI MAHAJAN, BLOCK
    DEVELOPMENT      OFFICER










                                                               .
    SALOONI,              DISTRICT





    CHAMBA, H.P.
                                                         ....RESPONDENTS.

(BY. MR. DINESH THAKUR, MR. SUMESH RAJ AND MR. SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL, WITH MR. MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE

GENERAL )

Whether approved for reporting?1 No

This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the

following: ORDER

This Contempt Petition filed under Article 215 of the

Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt

of Courts Act, 1971, calls for taking action against the respondents

impleaded therein, for violating the judgment passed by this Court

in CWPOA No.255 of 2019, dated 19.08.2022, affirmed by Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.56 of 2020, dated

15.12.2020.

2. A perusal of the said judgments demonstrates that vide

order dated 19.08.2022, passed in CWPOA No.255 of 2019, the

Court had dismissed the petition which was preferred by the

petitioner against the order passed by the authorities, holding

appointment of the petitioner therein as Panchayat Sahayak to be

.

bad in law. The appeal which was preferred by the said petitioner,

namely, Bihari Lal, before the Hon'ble Division Bench met the same

fate. In other words, there was no mandamus issued by the Court in

the said matter, non­compliance of which could be said to have had

resulted into any disobedience on the part of the respondents.

3.

The petition, therefore, apparently is misconceived and

the same is accordingly dismissed. and the petitioner is well advised

not to indulge in the filing of such misconceived petitions in future.

Notice stands discharged.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge

June 03, 2022 (Rishi)