^ 33R<gfe B@nc;n Contempt Case (C) No.........3> \.-b..... of 2011 .«" ^' ^^- ....-<;" ^^ 0^--"6()- \\ Mahendra Kumar Yadav S/o Sliri Shivlal Yadav, aged 50 years. Presentlv Working as Asstt. Gradc III, Posted at oiTice ol' Superintendent Engineer. P.M.G.S.Y., Raigarh Districl- Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS 1. Vivek Dhand Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Departinent, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) 2. H.P. Kindo The than, Secretary/ Development Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. DevashishDas Development Commissioner, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4. S.S. Toppo Executive Engineer, R.E.S. Division Rai.garh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETIT10N U/A 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1973. ^ w^Vw (<•<!•* ^H 3TT^T sh*tich ^'ri^ ~5^ '^WW'U, »xll''H<l(o, fs|CII<H1< . (^xAfi"-CA&^COt^^fc/h ^^....•^.^.......^..-.-..^...^.^........^^^Q 3n^r'qsR?(ijcj{^41ET) 'S^IBRtlte! 311^(1 No.6609/10 with a direction to decide the reDresentation of the +Wl<'l4-l lltldl' tf 'fe'St <!ai<$l< ^•3jfiffl3n^i n snrlvastava. j. 12-09-2011 Shri i.S.Sahu, counsei forffie petitioner. Heard. Learned counsel for the p^titioner submits that the writ petition of the petitioner was finally dis.oosed dfr vlde order dated 21'01.'2011 in vv.P.i'Sj the concerned authority to take steps to petitioner in the iiaht of the decislon of the Court in W.P.(S) No.1861/05 (R^m Dutare Prajapati & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) det accordance iaw, within a p^ or' copv of the order. He suEjmits that after the order was passed, a representation was made to the have been passed. He rurther s. ;ided or. 27/2/07, on its own merlts and in riod of rour weeKs from the date or recelpt Secretarv of the department, Dut no orders ubmits that on 25/07/2011 (Annexure C/5), the Executive Enaineer forv/aitded the case of the petitioner to the Commlssioner (Deveiopment), Cf 21/1/2011 passed bv the Court, the Commissioner. He su&mits competent authoritv to take decisf hrom the averments and tf record, 1 find that the petitioner| Development Commissioner. Th| ai.ithorlty to taKe decision on p|i petitioner snall approacn tne DeM' in compliance ot order Qated date, no decision has been taKen bv :hat the Development Commissioner is the ion in the matter. ie documents which have been piaced on has not made represeniation before fhe & order or the Court requires tne concerned pTitinn^r'< elQpment Commlssloner witnin a period of ^TF^i,7 .^^; vW,n^^t'TiT^--!S/!'40—2/2011—1,50,000. .f ir,^. 'wsy"'vj ^ ;: 31I^i'WfiaN 3TT^?T ?h^i<^> Deepii &• a^^ 3^T ^Wv^l, Q-dly'Ko, fs<c11<-lll,< (^o^dr. <3vx_(c.3 <A^ •&>&/) i "^T. 200 gn^i-q^RTCjcif^t^ij TCIIWaiOTSil^'H -^ L <:hi^<r(41i •ffl'tR'It' ^ fs'^l Tf<ii^i< '^siRnsn^i his representat representatiQn ( tiate of receipt of >'! No.6609/10. i. The Deveiopment the petitioner within a same as directed vi' three weeks and submit Commissioner shail aecide thj period of four we.eKs rrom the order dated 21/1/2011 in vv'.P.($'i ine aforesaid oD^ervations/directions, the petrtion is finall^ disposed off. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge SHIF^ ^ftiT ggm?-?, u^~'it''ffre- -i-s/140—2/2011—1,50»000.<;' .>"