1

2026:CGHC:6824

The date when

the judgment is

reserved

The date when

the judgment is

pronounced

The date when the

judgment is uploaded on

the website

Operative Full

09.12.2025 06.02.2026 -- 06.02.2026

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CONT No. 442 of 2015

1 - Sajjan Kumar Sahu S/o Late Manglu Ram Sahu, Aged About

66 Years Ex-Army Service Man, R/o. Village Pawni, Post Pawni,

P. S. Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara

Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner

versus

1 - Indubhushan Padwar S/o Shri Uttam Dash Padwar, Ex-

Sarpanch of Village Panchayat-Pawni, R/o Village Pawni, And

Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

2

2 - Raju Sahu S/o Manharan Sahu, R/o Village Pawni, And Office-

Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S. Bilaigarh,

Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District - Balodabazar-

Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

3 - Santram Sahu S/o Abhayram Sahu R/o Village Pawni, And

Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

4 - Smt. Pin Bai Sahu W/o Ram Charan Sahu, R/o Village Pawni,

And Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

5 - Munna Lal Sahu S/o Ashalram Sahu, At Present Up -

Sarpanch Of Village Panchayat - Pawni, R/o Village Pawni, And

Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

6 - Kalas Ram Sahu S/o Chaitram Sahu, R/o Village Pawni, And

Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

7 - Balram Sahu S/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village Pawni, And

Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

3

8 - Ashok Sahu S/o Asharam Sahu, R/o Village Pawni, And Office-

Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S. Bilaigarh,

Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District - Balodabazar-

Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

9 - Ramlal Sahu S/o Sahettar Sahu, R/o Village Pawni, And

Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

10 - Ramkripal Sahu S/o Johan Sahu, R/o Village Pawni, And

Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

11 - Lakeshwar Sahu S/o Cheduram Sahu, R/o Village Pawni,

And Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

12 - Madhu Sahu S/o Ramadhar Sahu, R/o Village Pawni, And

Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

13 - Ramcharan Sahu S/o Budhram Sahu, R/o Village Pawni, And

Office-Bearers Of Village Panchayat Pawni, Post Pawni P. S.

Bilaigarh, Tahsil And Revenue Circle Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

4

14 - Anupam Tiwari Sub-Divisional Officer Of Bilaigarh District -

Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

15 - Shankar Dayal Mishra Tahsildar Bilaigarh, Tahsil And

Revenue Circle Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara

Chhattisgarh.

16 - Laxman Dayal Giri Sub Inspector, Presently Posted As

Incharge Of Police Station Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District -

Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents

For Petitioner :Mr. J.N. Nande, Advocate

For Res. No. 4 to 13 :Mr. P.M. Shrivas, Advocate

For Res No.14 :Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate

For Res. No. 15 & 16:Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

(C.A.V. Order )

1.The petitioner has filed this contempt petition due to willful

disobeyance of order dated 28.05.2014 passed in W.P.(227)

No. 432/2014 by respondent/contemnors, whereby a

direction was issued not to dispossess the petitioner, if not

already dispossessed.

2.Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are

that the petitioner is a retired Constable of the Indian Army.

5

After his superannuation, for the purpose of earning his

livelihood, he applied for allotment of agricultural land. The

Collector, Raipur, by order dated 29.08.2005 passed in

Revenue Case No. 09/A-59/2004-05, allotted unoccupied

Government land situated at Village Pawni, P.H.N. No. 08,

comprising Khasra No. 2788/6, admeasuring 0.223 hectare,

and Khasra No. 2788/5, admeasuring 1.800 hectare,

for cultivation purposes. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar,

Bilaigarh, issued a lease deed in favour of the petitioner on

18.09.2005, and the petitioner’s name was duly recorded in

the revenue records. Since then, the petitioner has been in

lawful possession of the said land. Subsequently, certain

villagers of Village Pawni filed an application before the

Collector, Raipur, seeking cancellation of the petitioner’s

lease granted under Section 237 of the Chhattisgarh Land

Revenue Code, 1959. After scrutiny of the records, the

Collector registered a case being Revenue Case No.14/B-

121/2006-2007 and by order dated 31.12.2007, the case

was dismissed. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3, being

aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2005 passed in

Revenue Case No.09/A-59/Year 2004-05, filed an appeal

before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur for cancellation

6

of order dated 29.08.2005 which was registered as

Revenue Case No.314A/59-Year 2012-13 and by order

dated 22.02.2014, the learned Additional Commissioner

cancelled the order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the

Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before the

Chhattisgarh Revenue Board, Bilaspur by way of second

appeal being Appeal Case No.A/21/R/A-59/136/2014, which

was admitted for hearing, however, the stay application of

the petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of

rejection of stay application, the petitioner approached this

Court by filing W.P. (227) No. 432 of 2014, wherein this

Hon’ble Court passed an interim order dated 28.05.2014 in

favour of the petitioner. Despite the subsistence of the said

interim order, the respondents and other persons

deliberately disobeyed the same and created such

circumstances that it became impossible for the petitioner to

peacefully enjoy and cultivate his land. Further, the Gram

Panchayat, Pawni, passed a resolution dated 28.08.2015

under Subject No. 13, declaring that the petitioner’s land

would be treated as grazing land and that villagers would

release their cattle for grazing, thereby threatening

dispossession of the petitioner.

7

3.The petitioner repeatedly approached the Tahsildar,

Bilaigarh, who directed the Patwari to conduct spot

inspection. The Patwari submitted his report along with

Panchnama dated 14.08.2014. The petitioner thereafter

submitted several representations and complaints to the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, and police authorities

seeking enforcement of this Court’s order and protection of

his possession. On 30.08.2015, in the presence of police

personnel, the respondents and villagers forcibly entered

the petitioner’s land and released cattle, causing complete

destruction of standing crops. Despite full knowledge of the

interim order passed by this Court, the concerned

authorities failed to provide protection or initiate action

against the offenders, thereby allowing deliberate violation

of the Court’s order.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is the lawful allottee and recorded lessee of the

subject land since 2005, and his possession has never

been lawfully disturbed by any competent authority. The

interim order dated 28.05.2014 passed by this Court was

binding upon all respondents and authorities. Their acts in

passing Panchayat resolutions, encouraging forcible

8

grazing, and dispossessing the petitioner are in willful and

deliberate disobedience of the Court’s order. Learned

counsel further submits that the resolutions passed by the

Gram Panchayat, Pawni, particularly dated 20.06.2015 and

28.08.2015, amount to abuse of official position and

constitute clear acts of contempt, as they were passed

despite knowledge of the subsisting order dated 28.05.2014

of this Court. Learned counsel also submits that repeated

representations to the police and revenue authorities were

ignored on the pretext that the matter was sub-judice, which

itself demonstrates abdication of statutory duty and tacit

support to the contemnors. The destruction of standing

crops in the presence of police personnel reflects a

complete failure of law and order and shows that the

contemnors acted with impunity and in open defiance of

judicial authority. It has been also submitted that the acts of

the respondents/contemnors squarely fall within the

definition of civil contempt, being willful disobedience of the

order passed by this Court, attracting action under the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as well as Article 215 of the

Constitution of India.

5.Mr. P.M. Srivas, learned counsel for contemnors/respondent

9

Nos. 4 to 13 submits that the alleged resolution dated

28.08.2015 was not passed with any intention to dispossess

the petitioner or to violate any order of this Court. The

respondents are newly elected office bearers of the Gram

Panchayat and had no knowledge of the order dated

28.05.2014, as the petitioner neither supplied a copy of the

said order nor disclosed its existence. Prior thereto, a notice

dated 17.06.2015 was issued to the petitioner through the

Village Kotwar, merely directing the petitioner not to

cultivate the disputed land in the absence of any Court

order in his favour, but the petitioner refused to accept the

notice. In these circumstances, the passing of the resolution

cannot amount to willful disobedience. It has been further

submitted that during pendency of the contempt

proceedings, the petitioner’s case stood finally decided by

the Board of Revenue on 07.09.2015, and consequently

W.P. (227) No. 432/2014 was rendered infructuous and

disposed of on 04.12.2015. Hence, no contempt

proceedings are maintainable. Learned counsel also

submits that without prejudice, the contemnors tender an

unconditional apology and undertake to strictly comply with

all orders of this Court in letter and spirit.

10

Reliance has been placed on the decision of High

Court of Allahabad in the matter of Devi Prasad Misra Vs.

State of U.P. reported in (2014) 3 UPLBEC 2436.

6.Mr. S.P. Kale, learned counsel for respondent

No.14/contemnor would submit that the respondent holds

the highest respect for this Court and its orders and has no

intention whatsoever to disobey or flout any direction of this

Court. Without prejudice, he tenders his unconditional

apology, if any act is construed as contemptuous, though no

such act was ever intended or committed. It has been

submitted that in W.P. (227) No. 432/2014, the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh was not arrayed as a party, and

the said writ petition stood finally disposed of on

04.12.2015. Consequently, the interim order dated

28.05.2014 merged with the final order. The petitioner has

failed to establish any willful or deliberate non-compliance of

the said interim order by Respondent No.14. It has been

also submitted that the petitioner never submitted any

application or representation before Respondent No.14

alleging non-compliance of this Court’s order. Though the

petitioner claims disturbance of possession, his

representations were addressed only to the Sub-Divisional

11

Officer, Bilaigarh, and no copies thereof were served upon

the concerned office or upon the respondent. Learned

counsel further submits that the petitioner deliberately

suppressed material facts from this Court, particularly that

he had already instituted a civil suit for declaration and

permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Class-II,

Bilaigarh, wherein his application under Order 39 Rules 1

and 2 CPC was rejected on 12.05.2014 and the suit itself

was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution on

28.03.2016. Thus, the petitioner has wrongly portrayed the

factual matrix in the contempt petition. It was also submitted

that no specific allegation of contempt has been levelled

against Respondent No.14 in the entire contempt petition.

Even the resolution dated 20.06.2015 of the Gram

Panchayat, Pawni does not contain any allegation against

the answering respondent, nor are all persons connected

with the said resolution impleaded in the present

proceedings, rendering the said document irrelevant for the

purpose of contempt.

7.Learned counsel also submitted that during the pendency of

the writ petition, the second appeal before the Board of

Revenue was finally decided on 07.09.2015 in favour of the

12

petitioner, and the writ petition was thereafter disposed of

on 04.12.2015 as infructuous. In absence of any subsisting

order and any willful disobedience thereof, no contempt

proceedings are maintainable against Respondent No.14.

Thus, at last it has been prayed that the present contempt

petition may be dismissed and reiterates his unconditional

apology and undertakes to abide by every order of this

Court in its true letter and spirit.

8.Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel for

respondent/contemnor Nos. 15 to 16 submits that

Respondent No.16 has been wrongly described in the

petition as “Laxman Dayal Giri”, whereas his correct name

is Lachchhanram Giri. Respondent No.16 served as

Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station Bilaigarh from

16.08.2015 to 11.11.2016 and never functioned as Sub-

Inspector or In-charge of the said Police Station. During the

relevant period, the In-charge of Police Station was

Harishchandra Yadav and Inspector Kumar Singh Usendi. It

was submitted that the allegations of inaction against

Respondent No.16 are wholly baseless. Upon the complaint

dated 19.06.2015 submitted by the petitioner, Faimaish

Nalis No. 131/15 was registered and the applicant was

13

advised to approach the competent Court. Similarly, on the

complaint dated 30.08.2015, Faimaish Nalis No. 218/15 was

recorded and appropriate advice was given. Further, on the

complaint dated 15.10.2015 against the Sarpanch and

villagers, FIR No. 278/2015 under Sections 147, 149, 447

and 427 IPC was registered, investigated by Respondent

No.16, and charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC,

Bilaigarh.

9.Learned counsel further submits that in the said criminal

case, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced

by the learned Trial Court. The conviction was affirmed in

Criminal Appeal No. 119/2019 by the learned Sessions

Judge, Balodabazar, though the sentence was modified and

fine enhanced, thereby clearly demonstrating that

Respondent No.16 acted diligently and in accordance with

law.

10.With regard to Respondent No.15, it has been submitted

that he joined as Tehsildar, Bilaigarh on 05.08.2015 and

functioned as Tehsildar In-charge till 06.08.2016, while also

discharging duties as Naib-Tehsildar. He retired from service

on 30.06.2018. It is submitted that Respondent No.15 was

never informed about the Panchayat resolutions dated

14

20.06.2015 and 28.06.2015, nor was any intimation given to

him regarding the alleged dispossession on 30.08.2015. In

any case, the police authorities had already taken action

against the persons involved, who stood convicted. In view

of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel submits that no case

of willful disobedience or contempt of the order passed by

this Court is made out against Respondent Nos. 15 and 16.

The allegations are unfounded and contrary to the record. It

is, therefore, prayed that the contempt proceedings against

the answering respondents may be dropped.

Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court

in the matter of M/s Mile Stone Soft. Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Nidhi Chibber [Cont. Case No.02/2015 order dated

08.05.2015] and the decision of High Court of Judicature at

Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in the matter of Salma Bi

Vs. The Collector, Buldhana & Ors. (W.P. No. 4031/2021,

order dated 08.02.2022)

11.The petitioner has filed his rejoinder pursuant to reply-

affidavit filed by the respondent contemnors alleging that the

respondents have committed willful and deliberate

disobedience of the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by this

Court. Despite the said order, the respondents passed a

15

resolution dated 28.08.2015 declaring the petitioner’s land

as grassland and permitted village-wide grazing of cattle,

thereby forcibly dispossessing the petitioner and destroying

his standing crop. The reliance placed on the Panchanama

dated 23.06.2014 is wholly misconceived, as it neither

disproves the petitioner’s possession nor non-cultivation

and is a self-serving document, with three witnesses being

contesting respondents. On the contrary, the petitioner

cultivated paddy on the land and sold the crop on

31.12.2014, conclusively establishing cultivation during

2013-14, which is further supported by statements recorded

in Criminal Case No. J505/2015 confirming the petitioner’s

continuous possession. The plea of respondent No.1

regarding his absence at the spot is irrelevant, as the illegal

resolution was passed under his authority as head of the

Panchayat, and respondent Nos.4 to 13 also acted in

complete disregard of the stay order. The conduct of the

respondents squarely amounts to wilful disobedience of the

order of this Hon’ble Court, warranting appropriate action to

uphold the majesty of law and sanctity of judicial orders.

12.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

16

13.The petitioner has filed this contempt petition for non-

compliance of this Court’s order dated 28.05.2014 passed in

W.P.(227) No.432/2014, wherein this Court has passed

order which reads thus :-

“19.Taking into consideration the submission

made by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner was alloted the land under lease

and the reason for cancellation are not proper, it

is directed that till the next date of hearing, the

petitioner shall not be dispossessed, if not

already dispossessed.”

14.The petitioner alleges that despite the order dated

28.05.2014, the contemnor/Gram Panchayat Pawni, in its

meeting dated 28.08.2015 under Subject No.13, passed a

resolution (Annexure C/1) declaring the petitioner’s land as

grazing land, permitting villagers to use it for grazing and

deciding to release cattle on the land, resulting in

dispossession of the petitioner.

15.The record shows that upon the petitioner’s application, the

Tahsildar, Bilaigarh, directed spot inspection, whereupon the

Patwari submitted a report dated 14.08.2014 (Annexure

C/4). Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat passed another

resolution dated 20.06.2015 (Annexure C/9) for removal of

17

alleged unauthorized occupation from Government land. In

pursuance thereof, the land was levelled using a JCB

machine. On 30.08.2015, respondent Nos.1 to 13, in the

presence of police personnel, entered the petitioner’s

agricultural land and released cattle on standing crops.

Photographs evidencing the incident have been placed on

record as Annexure C/15.

16.The respondent/contemnors have submitted that the

petitioner had filed a complaint dated 15.10.2015 against

Sarpanch and other villagers, pursuant to which, an FIR

bearing Crime No.278/2015 for the offence under Sections

147, 149, 447 and 427 of IPC was registered. The said

crime number was investigated and a criminal case being

Criminal Case No.2505/2015 was registered, wherein the

learned Trial Court convicted the accused persons with

imprisonment for 3-3 months each with fine. The said

judgment of conviction was subjected to challenge before

the learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazar being Criminal

Appeal No.119/2019, wherein the learned Sessions Judge

enhancing the fine amount to Rs.6,500/- each, reduced the

sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court.

17.It is further found that the Board of Revenue, by order dated

18

07.09.2015, finally decided the matter in favour of the

petitioner by setting aside the order of the Additional

Commissioner and restoring the order of the Collector,

Raipur. The present petition was filed on 10.09.2015

alleging non-compliance of the order dated 28.05.2014. The

writ petition bearing W.P.(227) No.432/2014 was disposed

of on 04.12.2015. The relevant portion of the order dated

04.12.2015 reads as under:

“Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit

that during the pendency of this petition, the

second appeal pending before the Board of

Revenue has now been finally decided vide order

dated 07.09.2015.

This petition arose out of an order passed in

interim application, therefore, this petition is

finally disposed off. However, considering that

the contempt petition has been filed and pending,

records of this case shall remain tagged with the

records of Contempt Case (Civil) No. 442/2015.”

18.Thus, it is undisputed that the main writ petition stood finally

disposed of on 04.12.2015.

19.In M/s Mile (supra) this Court has held that once a final

order is passed, all interim orders merge into the final order

and cease to have independent existence, and no contempt

19

can be founded upon such interim orders after disposal of

the main petition. Para 15 and 16 of the said order is

reproduced herein as under :-

“15.Thus in light of the aforesaid fact, question

would be, the day (05.01.2015) on which the

contempt petition was filed alleging non-

compliance of interim order dated 23.09.2014

and seeking initiation of contempt proceeding for

disobeying, whether such an interim order was

enforceable order in light of final order passed

by this Court 21.11.2014 dismissed the writ

petition?

16.It is well settled law based on Doctrine of

merger that once a final order is passed, all the

earlier interim orders merge into the final order,

and the interim orders cease to exist.”

20.The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Salma (supra),

relying upon authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme

Court, has reiterated that an interim order merges into the

final order upon dismissal of the substantive proceedings

and cannot confer any enforceable right thereafter. Any

advantage gained on the strength of such interim order

must necessarily be neutralised. Para 16 of the said

judgment is as under :-

“ 16.The effect of vacation of an interim order

20

consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition

and the applicability of the principle of

restitution in that context would have to be

considered. It is well settled that on the

adjudication of a substantive proceeding, any

interlocutory order passed would merge into the

final order. Such interim order cannot form the

basis of conferring any right in favour of a party

in whose favour such interlocutory orders were

initially passed especially when such

proceedings are dismissed. Reference can be

usefully made to the following decisions :-

a)Ouseph Mathai & Others Versus M.Abdul

Khadir [(2002) 1 SCC 319]

"13. It is settled position of law that stay granted

by the court does not confer a right upon a

party and it is granted always subject to the

final result of the matter in the court and at the

risks and costs of the party obtaining the stay.

After the dismissal, of the lis, the party

concerned is relegated to the position which

existed prior to the filing of the petition in the

court which had granted the stay. ...…"

(b)Kalabharati Advertising (supra)

"15. No litigant can derive any benefit from the

mere pendency of a case in a court of law, as

the interim order always merges into the final

order to be passed in the case and if the case is

ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands

nullified automatically…

21

The maxim actus curiae neminem

gravabit, which means that the act of the court

shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in

such a case. situation the court is under an

obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by

the act of the court. Thus, any undeserved or

unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the

jurisdiction of the court must be neutralised, as

the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to

confer any advantage on a party by the delayed

action of the court.

17. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of

M.P. this Court examined this issue in detail and

held that no one shall suffer by an act of the

court. The factor attracting the applicability of

restitution is not the act of the court being

wrongful or a mistake or error committed by the

court; the test is whether an act of the party

persuading the court to pass an order held at

the end as not sustainable, has resulted in one

party gaining an advantage it would not have

otherwise earned, or the other party suffering

an impoverishment which it would not have

suffered but for the order of the court and the

act of such party. There is nothing wrong in the

parties demanding to be placed in the same

position in which they would have been had the

court not intervened by its interim order, when

at the end of the proceedings, the court

pronounces its judicial verdict which does not

22

match with and countenance its own interim

verdict. The injury, if any, caused by the act of

the court shall be undone and the gain which

the party would have earned unless it was

interdicted by the order of the court would be

restored to or conferred on the party by suitably

commanding the party liable to do so. Any

opinion to the contrary would lead to unjust if

not disastrous consequences.

The aforesaid thus clearly indicates that a

party in whose favour an interim order is

passed cannot be permitted to continue to

retain the benefit thereof consequent upon

dismissal of the substantive proceedings. In

effect the petitioner by relying upon aforesaid

legal principle seeks the relief of declaration of

being elected unopposed for Seat C. In the

aforesaid factual backdrop and the legal

position obtaining it cannot be said that the

petitioner was infact "calling in question the

election" of the fourth respondent in these

proceedings so as to attract the bar under

Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India."

(c)Abhimanyoo Ram Versus State of Uttar

Pradesh & Another [(2008) 17 SCC 71]

"5. The assumption of the appellant that

the High Court has made any unwanted or

unwarranted observation or issued any

direction which is uncalled for, while dismissing

his petition as not pressed, is not correct. The

23

High Court has merely spelt out expressly, the

consequences of the dismissal of the writ

petition. Such explicit directions have become

necessary to check a raising trend among the

litigants to secure the relief as an interim

measure, and then avoid adjudication on

merits, particularly in matters relating to

examinations and recruitment. The modus

operandi adopted in such matters is as follows:

The litigant approaches the court in the last

minute for relief with an interim prayer. He

persuades the court to grant the interim relief by

highlighting the urgency, irreparable loss and

balance of convenience. He obtains interim

relief and secures the desired benefit with the

help of such interim order. Once the purpose of

securing the interim order is achieved

(particularly where the interim order granted is

the same as the final relief prayed), he makes

an innocuous submission to the court that he

does not want to press the petition and gets the

matter disposed of, thereby achieving the goal

of securing relief without adjudication. He takes

advantage of the fact that invariably courts do

not spell out the consequences, when

dismissing the petitions as not pressed. The

result is that in many cases, a litigant who

would not get the relief on detailed scrutiny of

his claim during a contested final hearing, gets

away with undeserved relief secured by way of

24

an interim order."

(d)Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. &

Others Versus U.P. State Electricity Board &

Others [(1997) 5 SCC 772]

"11. It is equally well settled that an order of

stay granted pending disposal of a writ

petition/suit or other proceeding, comes to an

end with the dismissal of the substantive

proceeding and that it is the duty of the court in

such a case to put the parties in the same

position they would have been but for the

interim orders of the court. Any other view

would result in the act or order of the court

prejudicing a party (Board in this case) for no

fault of its and would also mean rewarding a

writ petitioner in spite of his failure. We do not

think that any such unjust consequence can be

countenanced by the courts……..”

It is thus clear that the fourth respondent

after 08.07.2021 on dismissal of her writ petition

cannot rely upon the ad-interim order dated

04.01.2021 to contend that she is now a validly

elected member of the Gram Panchayat from

Seat C. The advantage gained by her will have

to be neutralised.”

21.The Allahabad High Court in Devi Prasad (supra) has also

held that continuance under an interim order does not

confer any right once the main petition is dismissed, and

25

such interim orders become non est in the eye of law. Para

12 of the said judgment is as under :-

“12. Continuance to serve under an interim

order would not confer any benefit upon

petitioner. It is well established that act of the

Court shall prejudice none. The services

rendered pursuant to an interim order would not

give any benefit to petitioner. This issue has

been considered by a Division Bench of this

Court (in which I was also a member) in Smt.

Vijay. Rani Vs. Regional Inspectress of Girls

Schools, Region-I and Others and the Court

held as under:

"An interim order passed by the Court merges

with the final order and, therefore, the result

brought by dismissal of the writ petition is that

the interim order becomes non est. A Division

Bench of this Court in Shyam Lal Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Others,, while

considering the effect of dismissal of writ

petition on interim order passed by the Court

has laid down as under:

"It is well settled that an interim order merges in

the final order and does not exist by itself. So

the result brought about by an interim order

would be non est in the eye of law if the final

order grants no relief. The grant of interim relief

when the petition was ultimately dismissed

could not have the effect to postponing

26

implementation of the order of compulsory

retirement. It must in the circumstances take

effect as if there was no interim order."

The same principal has been reiterated in the

following cases:

(A) Sri Ram Charan Das Vs. Pyare Lal,…

"In Shyam Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Lucknow and Others,, a Bench of this Court has

held that orders of stay of injunction are interim

orders that merge in final orders passed in the

proceedings. The result brought about by the

interim order becomes non est in the eye of law

in final order grants no relief. In this view of the

matter it seems to us that the interim stay

became non est and lost all the efficacy, the

commissioner having upheld the permission

which became effective from the date it was

passed."

(B) Shyam Manohar Shukla Vs. State of U.P.

and Others,

"It is settled law that an interim order passed in

a case which is ultimately dismissed is to be

treated as not having been passed at all (see

Shyam Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow

and Others, and Sri Ram Charan Das Vs.

Pyare Lal,.."

(C) M/s. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd.

Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and other…

"After the dismissal of the writ petitions wherein

notification dated 21.4.1990 was stayed, the

27

result brought about by the interim orders

staying the notification, became non est in the

eye of law and lost all its efficacy and the

notification became effective from the

beginning.”

22.In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is evident that the

interim order dated 28.05.2014, having merged into the final

order passed on 04.12.2015 disposing of W.P.(227)

No.432/2014. It is well settled position of law based on

Doctrine of merger that once a final order is passed, all the

earlier interim orders merge into the final order and the

interim orders cease to exist. As per the submission of both

the parties, the Revenue Court has also passed the order in

favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the contempt

proceeding for disobedience of order dated 28.05.2014, at

this stage, cannot be initiated as there is no enforceable

order for maintaining and initiating contempt petition against

the contemnors. It is also relevant to note that the alleged

acts of contemnors have already been adjudicated upon by

the criminal Court, resulting in conviction of the

respondents/contemnors.

23.As a fall out and consequence of above analysis, the

28

respondents/contemnors are hereby discharged. The

contempt petition is dismissed and the contemp proceeding

against respondents/contemnors is hereby dropped.

24.The petition, thus, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

Judge

pekde