"M JN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) NoS^D/ 2011 PR r'r. u— PETITIONER ^^L^ ....."""—r'r ^-^^ RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR Virendra Das Manikpuri, S/o. late Uday Das, Aged about 42 years Working as Peon at Municipal Council, Birgaon, District-Raipur (C.G.) Versus Hemshankar Deshlahara S/o. Late Dukoreha Deshlahara, Aged about 49 years, Presently working as Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council - Birgaon, District-Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF n IA The petitioner "named above most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under:- XT-HC—78 3?TT^T ^»T^Jch TW^TT^TsCTW ^ ^IWCIT drRT^i ^sr -^ww^, ^^wj^, [®tdi'H(j,< . ^^d. <^5^((:7J)A/^-z3^'b/M ^^....-^..^.....—.-.7:.^...^^.......^^^ 4 ^ ^^^^K (^3si^) tiwi^R ^%a 3?n^T SB : Hon'bie Shri Ivianindra Svloh 09-11-2011 Shri Vivek Sharma, coun^ other persons coilectiveiy, the the case of the petitioner as per| <t)H^41r1 W^ ^ f^zt Tf^TT '^3tRm3:n^r an Shrivastava. J. ei for the petitioner. Heard. Learned counsel for the'p^titioner submits that even though vide order dated 10/2/2011 passed in W.i{3.(S) No.7450/10 filed by the petitioner and respondent was directed to scrutinize the case of each and every individLJal as per the memo dated 5/3/08 and in the light of the weli settled principl^s of law, the respondent is not scrutinSzing direction of the Court but on the other hand. the petitjoner is apprehendjng |n view of memo dated 27/8/201 1 that the services of the petitioner would |)e terminated without any scrutiny. The direction issued videj order dated 10/2/2011 is very specific that the cases are required to be s^ the ilght of wefi settled principle^ of the respondent to comply witj time iimjt has been fixed for co| can be taken but the order ;rutinized as per memo dated 5/3/08 and jn of iaw. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part i the order of the Court. Even if no specific mpleting the exerdse; no undue advantage s required to be complied with within a reasonabfe time. The represen|tation of the petitioner shows that the order of the Court was communicat^d to the respondent on 23/5/2011. The respondent is under obligation i^ decide the matter within a reasonabie time. Considering that the petitjoner preferred representation on 23/5/2011 to the respondent and the time ^hich has lapsed by now, instead of injtiating contempt proceedings, this petitpon is disposed off with the observation that 5£T^\ fl '^.. ..;"'..'^ '^/'' ..^^' 'i^SS-^3"' XI-HC—78 3H^l^Tf^W wrrw^rsCTNr Deepii <ir*T<'(T ^t-IT^l '3~^T ^TFn^T, ^^PT^, fsxni^y ...<^t.-....^.^....^J..^ 3!^/// W^ 200' ^ ^ ^^^^R (^?"^) ^nw^f^T 3?n^r -^-<£>^- if the scrutiny, as directed vid^ within a period of 60 days from inaction would be viewed seriol initiated against the respondent. chl^f<yl<flrl TTR^f ^ fe^t' Tf^gK '^3tRW STT^T order dated 10/2/2011 is not completed t|ie date of receipt of copy of this order; the •|jsiy and contempt proceedings wouid be Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge