Order On Board

17/01/2024

1. This contempt petition is filed alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 16.12.2022, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP (PIL) No. 150 of 2022.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have willfully disobeyed the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court as they have started mining activities within 25 meters of the Sati Temple whereas the order specifies that mining activities is permitted only beyond 130 meters and therefore, there is willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. He further contended that the documents enclosed along with reply submitted by respondents in particular the document Annexure R-4 is a concocted document as in the document the date is mentioned as 23 whereas under the signature, the date is mentioned as 20. He further referred to the documents filed by respondents at Page No.16, which is Spot Panchnama to show that in this Panchnama date is mentioned as 23.02.2023 and therefore, how the two Panchanamas can be prepared on the same date. The documents placed on record are concocted.

3. Learned senior counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the respondents could not think of the violation and breach of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. He contended that in the order, subject matter of contempt petition, the Court had modified its earlier order where the respondents were restrained to do the mining activities within 300 meters of Sati Temple taking into consideration the application submitted by respondents showing the difficulties. Before starting of mining activities respondents have constructed earthern walls to protect the animals and humans beings and for their safety from felling into ditch to be digged from the mining activity.

4. Mining activity is started beyond the earthen wall land and distance of the mining activities is beyond 130 meters from Sati Temple. It was also verified by the State authorities and have mentioned in the spot inspection. He contended that the spot inspection which is filed by respondents and pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner is two Spot Panchnama prepared by two different State authorities one prepared by Sub-Divisional Officer (R) and another by Tahsildar. He also submits that in both the panchana there is mention by the State authorities that respondents/SECL are following the orders and directions issued by the High Court. It is next contended that writ petition bearing WP (PIL) No.150 of 2022 itself was disposed of on 19.09.2023 and the Court come to the conclusion that based on report submitted by Directorate of Culture and Archaelogy, Chhattisgarh Raipur stating that the authorities refused to declare the site as protected area under the Act of 1958 as it was not found fit for protection by the Department and they have suggested for shifting of all the artifacts to a local State or District Museum due to danger inherent on account of urban expansion as all the monuments and artifacts are lying in open place and further issued the directions therein for shifting of artifacts, monuments and Sati Temple in accordance with the rules and regulations and the guidelines issued by the Department on the subject matter. He places the order dated 19.09.2023, passed in WP (PIL) No.150 of 2022.

5. The submission of learned senior counsel for respondents that writ petition is disposed of is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

7. The main grievance of petitioner in the contempt petition is that respondents authorities, who are employees of SECL have started mining activities within 25 meters from Sati Temple. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with reply, in particular the Collector considering the application submitted by SECL for providing appropriate officer on spot enabling them to