;&»,?!,! 't- t? ^ov THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Fc (1 <1 CONTEMPT PETITON N0 ^ 12004 APPLICANT / PETITIONER ^ ^IVIanoj Kumar Kashyap S/o late Shri S.L. Kashyap, aged about 29 years. Village & PO. Marghati, Tah Malkharouda, Distt.Janjgir Chamapa (C.G.) '^^^•-••" ^ NON-APPLICANTS/: CONTEMPNERS / 1') Shri C.R. Khetan, Secretary, Deptt. of Agriculture, State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur. ^ p Shri L.J.V. Prasad Director ^""T^riculture, State of C.G. Raipur. 5) Shri L.V. Singh, Deputy Director, .Agriculture Deptt. Distt.Janjgir Champa.C.G. PETITtON UNDER ARTICLE/215 Q!fTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SEC.12/15 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT FOR INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATING ORDER DTD. f.fl.r\f .'-/, -. , 10 X^. ••t-r^.n. /.i_j3___c. ,"^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH Singie Bench Hon'ble Shri H.L. Dattu, C.J. Petitioner ResRondent Contempt Petition No.29 OF 2004 Manoj Kumar Kashyap Vs. Shri C.R. Khetan and others Present: Shri VimSesh Bajpai, counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Marhas, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. ORALORDER (Passed on 2nd March, 2007) This Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No.2709 of 2003, by order dated 5-9-2003, had only directed the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No.2 and further respondent No.2 had been directed to consider the same, pass appropriate orders and commuriicate the same to the petitioner. Alleging that the respondents have not complied with the ordere and directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has fiied this contempt petition before this Court. 2. Respondents No.2 and 3 have entered their appearance through learned counsel and have also filed their counter affidavits. Respondent No.2, in his counter affidavit, has stated on oath that after taking decision on the representation filed by the petitioner, the same has been communicated to the petitioner. 3. In my considered opinion, there is substantial compliance of the orders and directions issued by this Court. In that view, no further proceedings need be continued in this contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to question the correctness or otherv/ise of the o^ders ^^ ^ —2- passed by the respondents pursuant to the representation fited by the petitioner, before the appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- ChiefJustice BtSt [-•-:!•