Madhya Pradesh High Court
CONC/1476/2022 of SHYAMLAL Vs AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 1476 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHYAMLAL S/O RATANLAL VISHWAKARMA, AGED 65YEAR S , OCCUPATION: RETIRED D-2178 SUDAMANAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ARPAN JAIN - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.SHRI AJIT KESHRI STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHT H R O U G H PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, VALLABHBHAWAN MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)T H R O U G H PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, VALLABHBHAWAN MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.SMT. PREETI MAITHIL NAYAK DIRECTOR KISANKALYAN AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENTVALLABH BHAWAN, MANTRALAYA BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)KALYAN AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENTVALLABH BHAWAN, MANTRALAYA BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.SHRI B.L. BILLAIYA JOINT DIRECTOR KISANKALYAN AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENTVALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)KALYAN AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENTVALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.SHRI RAJENDRA DWIVEDI, SUB DIVISIONALOFFICER KISAN KALYAN AND AGRICULTUREDEVELOPMENT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)OFFICER KISAN KALYAN AND AGRICULTUREDEVELOPMENT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.SMT. SUSHMA THAKUR, DIVISIONAL JOINTDIRECTOR TREASURY ACCOUNTS AND PENSIONUJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS DIXITA GUPTA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 5)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submitted that the orderpassed by this court has been duly complied with.
2. Counsel for the petitioner is satisfied that the order passed by this Court has been duly complied with and nothing remains in this contemptpetition. Therefore, he does not want to continue it.petition. Therefore, he does not want to continue it.
3. In view of the compliance report, this contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.
BDJ
(ANIL VERMA)JUDGE