IN THE HON'BLEijIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) No.32-\ / 2011 .PETITIONER ..,.: *• »•••".^'* "\\\ .,.--<wy\, .-^l \v \--ifef'i)''\..--'''* /•i' V\ ! ' ./" '^i,-'' ^'''. ^.^''^•^ .-'"rt^' .^'y' .•••""'^ <%.^^"' '<^y 6 ^ Dinesh Kumar Kori, —••-" 'o. late Devsharan, Aged about 23 years, R/o. Graca Harratola, Post-Lalpur, Talisil - Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur (CG) Versus <>RESPONDENTS : 1. Thakur Ram Singh, Collector, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. B.K.'Rajput, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION_12 OF THE CONTEMPT ' OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLET'215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFFNDIA w^sw Fdi'* WfTSII^ 1~'~W -+• -g-^ ^iiqiy^ 0iTl1y<|6, fsK'liyy NINCTI ai*<ici(4A^Cc;^2-y'ui( sn^r 'q^q? (^pf^s?) Wl 200 ?^iiw ^ifei sn^i SB : Muii'ljle SliLi Maiiiijdia Muji 14-09-2011 Shri N. K. Chatterji, counsel f^rthe petitioner/s. Heard. Learned counsel for the chi<4l<n^i HW^* ^f t^st <f^^i< ^sifBHsni^i -Stliivoaidva betitioner/s submits that earlier the petitioner/s had filed writ petition, Ijiefore this Court aggrieved by notice dated 06-04-2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Assistant Commissioner. In the aforesaid writ petition, statetnent was made by the learned State counsel that the notice dated 06-041-2011 is only a tentative opinion of the authority and the fact that the petiticfner/s have been given a notice shows that no final decision in the matter hjas been taken and the same would be only after the receipt of reply. ConsiUering the aforesaid statement, the writ petition was finally disposed off o|3serving that the show cause notice shows tentative opinion and not respondents shall duly consider the B final decision and further that the 1 reply filed by the petitioner/s and hold on the part of the respondents to ta but decision has not been taken, wh The order passed by this Cc|urt petition was disposed off observing] this Court against the notice da) submission made by learned Stat^ appropriate enquiry before coming t^ any conclusion adverse to the interest of the petitioner/s. It is submitted th^t though reply has been submitted by the petitioner/s on 13-07-2011, till c|ate, no decision has been taken. It is also submitted that in the spirit of Vi\e order of the Court, it was incumbent <e decision in the matter expeditiously, lch amounts to willful disobedience. on 04-07-2011 shows that the writ that the petitioner/s have approached :ed 06-04-2011 and in view of the counsel. It is not the case of the ^S";±f,^,> :"" - E->. '''<*!> ^. S-.3S»S& 't •V'^sSsSft 5- -4- XI-HC—78 'S'Sf •<4|<4|tf^, ®fll<-l'l<o,fadiyl4,< HWW ^NI^ WI, 200 sn^i 'vw: (ijciij«)^ti) •SII^TW fi;-(i«b ?T8TT 41|^<| slR^ Tumane petitioner/s mat witnout consiaenng been passed. The matter has not date. Moreover.-the notice dated 06 Commissioner, andit is found that the respondent-Collector with a copy CM<lI<yt<lll ^IH^fl^f fs^ -<,f<1*$« ^aiRnsffl^i tne repiyrcenain oraers nave-now- (3een decided by the respondents till i|-04-2011 was issued by the Assistant tt[ie petitioner/s have submitted reply to Ito the Assistant Commissioner. In that view of the matter, 1 am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents. i Accordingly, the petition is disjnissed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- \ Manindra MohanShrivastava Judge r