Guru Prasad Dwivedi Vs. N.S.Bhatnagar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1053402
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnApr-08-2013
AppellantGuru Prasad Dwivedi
RespondentN.S.Bhatnagar
Excerpt:
1...con.c.381 o”08. 04.2013 petitioner present in person. shri s.k.kashyap, counsel for the contemner. it is submitted by shri kashyap, that today he has filed report of present collector, umaria shri s.k.upadhyaya, after supplying a copy of it to the petitioner. petitioner who is present in the court submits that the report of the collector is not correct and still there are certain encroachment in the premises. at this stage, it is submitted by the petitioner that order dated 12.2.2013 has not been complied with. in reply to it, it is submitted by the respondent that against the aforesaid persons, departmental proceedings were initiated and as per para 4 of the reply dated 31.10.2012 they were punished. in reply to the same, petitioner submitted that they were not adequately punished and looking to the misconduct, they deserve some severe punishment. in this regard, suffice it to say, that the petitioner may take recours.of law but in the contempt jurisdiction, we cannot examine the correctness and adequateness of the punishment imposed on the aforesaid person. so far as the encroachment part is concerned, the petitioner may file affidavit if he is not satisfied with the report of the collector, umaria filed alongwith the reply dated 6.4.2013. the collector, umaria is also directed to produce photographs of the spot showing that as on date there is no encroachment of any person in the school premises. for this purpose, hearing of this case is adjourned for two weeks. c.c.as per rules. (krishn kumar lahoti) (b.d.rathi) judge judge vj 2...con.c.381 o”08. 04.2013
Judgment:

1...CON.C.381 o”

08. 04.2013 Petitioner present in person.

Shri S.K.Kashyap, Counsel for the contemner.

It is submitted by Shri Kashyap, that today he has filed report of present Collector, Umaria Shri S.K.Upadhyaya, after supplying a copy of it to the petitioner.

Petitioner who is present in the Court submits that the report of the Collector is not correct and still there are certain encroachment in the premises.

At this stage, it is submitted by the petitioner that order dated 12.2.2013 has not been complied with.

In reply to it, it is submitted by the respondent that against the aforesaid persons, departmental proceedings were initiated and as per para 4 of the reply dated 31.10.2012 they were punished.

In reply to the same, petitioner submitted that they were not adequately punished and looking to the misconduct, they deserve some severe punishment.

In this regard, suffice it to say, that the petitioner may take recouRs.of law but in the contempt jurisdiction, we cannot examine the correctness and adequateness of the punishment imposed on the aforesaid person.

So far as the encroachment part is concerned, the petitioner may file affidavit if he is not satisfied with the report of the Collector, Umaria filed alongwith the reply dated 6.4.2013.

The Collector, Umaria is also directed to produce photographs of the spot showing that as on date there is no encroachment of any person in the School premises.

For this purpose, hearing of this case is adjourned for two weeks.

C.C.as per rules.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (B.D.Rathi) Judge Judge vj 2...CON.C.381 o”

08. 04.2013