IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case (C) No. IU) /2011 (Arising out of Order dated 19^.2010 passed in WP(S) No. 3712/2005>-^ PETITIONE^: /y..-' ^ ^y ^' RESPONDENTS: CONTEMNORS ^ymesh Chandra Sharma, aged <~ about 60 years, S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Sharma, Audit Ofi&cer, O/o Assistant Registrar, Sahakarita Vibhag, Raipur (CG). R/0- Trimurty Colony, Mahasamund (C.G.) 493445 VERSUS 1. Shri Manohar Pandey Coinmissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Shri Sanjay Garg, fhe then Collector Raipur, through the ftincipal Secretaiy, General Administrative Department, Mantralaya at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Dr.Rohit Yadav, CoUector, Raipur (CG). 4. Mi§§. P. Saaageeta , CoUector, Dbamtari (CG), 5. Sbii Sidharth Koinal Pardeshi, CoBector Rajn^ndgaon (CG). 6. Slari Rajat Kumar, the theii Chief Ei&eculive OMcer, Zala Pancl^yat Raipur at present posted as CoUeetos, Oistt, ByapW (0,0.) 7<Shd Atex V.F< fifeaion, Chief E^eet^ive Offie^x^ %ila Bswysbayaty I>hssotwi (C0)< 8. Smt^ Rit» ^^i^the tee^ Qaef Exe^utive offic^r^ ^ila Panchayat, R^xt^xdg^eax ^ at pT€;!»esttpE3^ed as Coijlector, Di^tt Kona (€.0.) 9. Shri C(€ ?gFdhaii (^baU^h, CSsweS jExecutiye Qfficer, Jaii^d Pan^hayat Sihava N^a^^ Di^yict Dtoamtari (C0|< -4- [C—78 ^T^T'^T'fyiN? 'cCT ^TT^T^RW ^NNNK1 HIHCtT a»*1ict» TS^ T^l^ld^, ^ti1-H4|<o, f®ldl'y(J,< ,0^. ^o^^ w . H t5/ ^ "Wt, 2'00 3TT^?T xra^' (a<icrf3^r) ^RTTW^Rf^r 3;n^r SB:MonLbieShr|JVSamncjraMohah Shrivastava. J. 17-11-2011 Shri S.K.Thomas, counsel fo^ Shri Shaiiendra Shukia, Shri Akhifesh Kumar, counsej Notice in this case was issuetl This contempt petition has| disobedience of order dated No.3712/05. Learned counsei for the peti| of this contempt petition, the orderj with, there has been deiay in com| period of three months was grante< accepting that the order of the Cou|1: to have been taken in the month has been taken as late as on 6/7/2Q1 On the other hand, referrinl counsei for respondent No.1 recelved In the office of respondenl the nature of exercise required jnformation from different offices time before his retirement. A Rajpur, Coiiector, Dhamtari and tljt< steps En the matter. in respons^ officers, informations were receiv^c 2011 and no sooner the Jnforma^I 1 the petitiQner. cour^sei for respondent No.1, 3 and 6. appears on behaif of respondent No.5. to respondent No.1 oniy. been fiied by the petitioner alieging wiilfui 19|f04/2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(s) subjlnlts or)t<if<n<fli "^TO^f ^ f3^ Tf^$R ^ 3fRf^ 3T^?T poner submits that though during the pendency jpassed by this Court has now been compiied |)liance of the order of the Court, inasmuch as to dedde the daim of the petitioner and sven was served on 12/8/2010, the decision ought ^ November, 2010 itseif whereas the decision 11. to the averments made in the repiy, learned that the order passed by the Court was No.1 on 12/8/2010. it is further submitted that |the respondent No.1 to coliect and gather \t/here the petltjoner was working from time to rjmunication was therefore sent io the Coilector, |e Coiiector. Rajnandgoan to take appropriate to communications made to the respeciive y from difference offices in the month of July, :ion was received, the' order was passed by ^w^'^^'^ ;^ .^'/ XI-HC—78 W«ffTW»*11«b 7^ ^{WM^, ^•fl1<M<l<o, {«l<ni<-t^< ~. ^^Ot^o./^/f/ -^ 20C 3TT^?T X^W (^qf^^T) 3TI^T ^T l^ra' ^H 3TT^T $FRN>' '^ fel^* -L^- ^•?^.^ 'v^-~ ^- ^^.....i,;^. .'-^^- WHW^ftn^TT^T <^. n ^ respondent No.1 on 6/7/2011. !t is caused was not intentionai. Learne^ that for the delay, apology Es tender^ taken cn petitioners ieave applic^ reguiarized as extra ordinary leave a| Taking into consiaeration the| partjes and the repiy fiied by the r^ deiay in compliance of the order of estabiished show that the deiay was | In that view of the matter, Ruls is therefore discharged. The recourse to such remedy as may| aggrieved by order dated 6/7/201 1 The petition is finaliy dispose^ QM^i(<n<flTi ^TR^ ^ f^st T{^$R ^3tRf*:T3T^T Itherefore submitted that the deiay which was counsei for the respondent however submits ^d. it is submitted that the decision has been |ions and the period of absence has been hd earned ieave as per rules. Isubmission made by learned counsei for the ^spondent, i find that though there has been fie Court, the circumstances whlch have been Inot intentional. afi not inclined to proceed further in the matter. betitioner however would be at iiberty to take Ibe available to him under the iaw if he Is ptissed by respondent No.1. off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ;^- '••'—.^^^-