»"', RESPONDENTS 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CONTEMPT PETITION No.47/2008 PETITiONER Smt. Rashmi Agrawal, aged about 44 years, Wife of Shri Sudhir Mohan Agrawal, Resident of Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsit and District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Shri Jitendra Shukla, The Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigarm, Raipur (C.G.) Shri M.K. Gupta, Nagar Niveshak, Nagar Palik Nigam, Raipur (C.G.) Shri Zahid Ali, The Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Raipur (C.G.) Shri Shyam Bafe, Chairman, Raipur Development Authority, Raipur (C.G.) 5 Shri M.D. Diwan, Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMFT PETITION UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT ^\ 4 Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, Counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. H.B, Agarwat, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, Counsel for respondents 1 & 2. ORAL ORDER (07.04.2010) SUNiL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. Petitioner-Smt. Rashmi Agrawal has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 15.11.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No.473/2001. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition on 15.11.2007 passed the following order vide para 3 : ,1^~ ...^- il 1 j CONTEMPT PETITION No.47/2008 shyna "In the event, the petitioner makes a representation to the respondents/authorities, , they are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the receipt of representation filed by the petitioner, if so advised." Mr. M.K.Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the order dated 15.11.2007, a representation was made to the Corporation on 29.11.2007. Since the representation was not disposed of till the fiiing of the contempt petition, the contempt petition was filed on 06.02.2008. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 & 2. Respondents 1 & 2 have contended that they have already decided the representation and an order to this effect was issued on 01 .03.2008 (Annexure -A annexed to the reply). Though the direction was to decide the representation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the representation, which in the present case was received on 29.11.2007 and there is some delay in disposal of the representation, as the same was disposed of on 01.03.2008, but that alone would not be a ground to proceed in the matter of contemptagainst the respondents. What is required for contempt is the wiilful disobedience or willful disregard of the order, which, 1 do not find in the present matter. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not deem it appropriate to proceed further in the matter. In view of the above, the proceedings of contempt^ are dropped at this stage. g^ ' Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 1 r'-~'' ':"' .'"•^ '•.' i'