SlnatB Bencir (i) IN THE fflGHCOURT OFJUDICATUREATBILASPUR(C.G.) CONTEMPT CASE rONo.)^/ 2011 (Arising out of order date 26.07.2010 passed by Hpn'ble Justice Shri M. M. Shrivastava in W.P. No. 3769/2010) A^PPLICANT 7~ .^•' J'^y^ ^^' Cjg^TEMPTNORS Non-Applicants /MohmmadAli S/oHasanAli, agedabout38 years, R/o Talapara, Taiyba Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Mr. SurendraKumarBehar State of C.G. Through-Secretary Dept. of Geology andMining D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Mr. SurendraKumarBehar Director, Directorate of Geology & Mining Ring Road No. 1, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Mr. Dhani Ram Patal Regional Head Directorate of Geology & Mining ChhattisgarhRegional Office Bilaspur (C.G) APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF EVDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTACT 3T[^I^T ^IW'Blt?! Sft+1 ^ISfl •S^ •^W\vR, ^-S\WS, hwwy. wwn aiiicb^...^^.L^^J^' M 311^1 ?%IWHf^T Shri S.P; Kale, counselj Heard on admission. This contempt. petitio) alleging wiliful disobedience) passed by this Court in W.P.| Leamed connsel for petitioner had earlier ffled a| and the said writ petition vs^ make representation, obser( respondent to consider and strictly m accordance witli y in the case of Ors. I petitioner submits fhat. representation to respondei has not been decided. In his the order of the Court. The writ petition wa; petitioner to make represen would be open for fhe respo^ident +i*if<'i41-f iWRtt' 4 'fe'st <I°it$i< i?3tpgiT3n^r fohan Shrivastava, J. for the petitioner. a has been filed by fhe petitioner of the order dated 26th July, 2010 (S)No.37469/10. the petiuoner submits that fhe writ petition claiming regLilar^zation |as finally disposed of with liberty to ^tng fhat it would be open for the |ake decision on such representation, ^LW, laid down by fhe Siipreme Court I. SCC Ij. Learned coimsel for fhe fhereafter, the petitioner made |t, but, till dat.e, his representation |submission, this amounts to Qoutins disposed of with libert}^ to the !tation and it. was observed that it. to consider and take dedsion [TTt^^a^ ef'- ^' £ ^ ^. i ''SSSsSSk &I-HC-22' .-..;'"' /&' ^sx-;^)- 311^1 ^I •f^;li3?3Tg?l ^tHlct) yfg^f f Praveen. 73( -tiW\vPf, vS^\W\d, hwvy. 111WI thNlcb •^ fss^st' in accordaiice with law. In tli< was issued to decide the refi stipulated time. Therefore, i<] inclmed to issue any notice t): open for the petitioner to tak|e may be available to hmr-un^er and inaction on the part of fh|i opiaion of this Court, no direction >resentation, much less even in the 1 this view of fhe matt.er, I am. not 3 respondents. However, it would be e recourse to appropriate remedy as the law, on the stated grievance authoritv. With fhe aforesaid ot disposed of. +i''if<'i''fl-i w^vS ^ fs^6 <Fii<^i< '^'srfigiTan^r 'seryations, the petition is fmally Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [Tft^ife^ .>" r