Chhattisgarh Diocese Board Of Education And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

P. R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ

Judgment dated 02.05.2018 passed by a Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 452 of 2018 preferred by the writ Petitioner against the refusal to

grant an interim order of stay has given rise to these two proceedings. The first one i.e., Review Petition No. 66 of 2018 is filed by Respondent No. 1

in the writ petition/appeal, whereas the other one is for proceeding against the Respondent/Contemnors for the alleged contemptuous act for paying

scant regards to the orders passed on 02.05.2018 as aforesaid.

Heard Shri Anshuman Singh and Shri Sourabh Sharma, the learned counsel for the review Petitioner, Shri Surfaraz Khan, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in contempt case who happens to be Respondent in Contempt Case No. 757 of 2018 and Shri Sudeep Verma, the

learned counsel representing the State.

The gist of the facts and sequence is that the Petitioner in the contempt petition had filed the writ petition with the following prayers:

10.1 That, the respondent no. 3 resolution No. EC:101:2018:569 dated 15-16.02.2018 may kindly be quashed.

10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice

alongwith cost of the petition.

There was a prayer for interim relief which came to be considered by the learned Single Judge who passed an Annexure A/2 order dated

05.04.2018 produced in the review petition, whereby the interim relief was declined. This was sought to be challenged by filing an appeal where a

categoric finding was rendered by the Bench to the effect that there was no reason to interdict the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

However, so as to provide some solace with regard to the apprehended course of action or some feud likely to be resulted, it was observed and

directed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment, as given below:

The appellant submits that it is a Society, registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act, 2001 and that supersession

of a Committee could be done only by the State Government under Section 33 of that Act. The second respondent is obviously not a statutory

authority. Therefore, while we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order refusing stay, it is necessary that status quo as on today

shall be maintained regarding possession and management of the institution of the Writ Petitioner.

We clarify that we are issuing such an order while disposing of this Writ Appeal at the stage of admission without hearing the respondents to ensure

that there ought to be some clarity regarding possession and management, thereby excluding possible feuds between rival groups. We also clarify that

the said direction issued herein will be subject to any further orders that the learned Single Judge may pass from time to time; even contrary to what

we have directed herein above.

The learned counsel appearing for the review Petitioner submits that the direction given by this Court has led to much adverse consequence and it is

being misused by the writ Petitioner who was the Appellant before this Court.

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in the contempt petition submits the sequence of events and the circumstances under which the

order passed by this Court has been put to challenge.

The learned counsel for the rival parties concede that the writ petition is still pending. After going through the verdict sought to be reviewed in the

review petition, we are of the view that, having found that there was no necessity to interdict the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the matter

could have been left to be finalized by raising appropriate pleadings, proceedings and submissions before the learned Single Judge where the issue is

pending. However since the order itself explains the scope, making it subject to further orders to be passed by the learned Single Judge, it is left to the

learned Single Judge to consider and pass appropriate orders.

In the said circumstances, we do not find it necessary to scrutinize and arrive at a finding or adjudication either in the review petition or in the

contempt petition and the parties are relegated to move the learned Single Judge for appropriate relief, to the extent they are aggrieved in any manner.

Both the matters are closed accordingly. We leave it open all the contentions raised from both the sides with regard to the merit involved. Based on

the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, considering the nature of the litigation involved, we express our hope and desire

that the writ petition be considered and finalized by the learned Single Judge, as expeditiously as possible.