^ HIGHCOl.lRTOFGHHftrTISGARH.BILASPUR CONTEMPT CftSE (Gl N0^187/2010 PETn'SONERS 1. SushilKumar Dee'pak^ S/o. Shri <3opi Lal Deepak.i Teacher,;Govt. IVIicidle Scho61,Kant-ranka, Bloek Saja, E8ucati6nal Disfnct Bemetara, District Dyi^.:(C.G.)^,.,:.;\,::^...,..,:.-:,.''.^^^ 2. Ram Kumar Dewangan, Sft>. Shri Jeevrakhan Dewangan, Teacher, Govt. lyiiddie School, Kathiya, Block Berla, Educational District Bemetara, DistrictDu%^C.G.5 3. Ram Prasad Sahu, San (5f Shri Khedufam, TeacheF ©ovt. Middle School, Hardua, Biofek Saja, Educational District Bemetarat Distrrot Dwg(C.G.) ,:. ;..:^: •VERSUS:;\- :• : : , •,::.,' '•••.•:: : ! 1. Nana Kumar, Secretary'Eclucationai Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur <C.G.>:;::';.,V'1.,.,,;::.:^^. 2. Smt. Nidhi Chhabra, Director Public Instruction; ^Raipur, Distt. Raipur ::,:'(C.G.)' :•, • :. •: ::, •,•: ';. CONTEMPT PETiTION UNDERARTiebE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION •ORINBiA. ;':'''':::'.:;;, :;-:;:.-;;/ ':^^ RESRONDENTS <np ADpearance: :: ;:..:., . '. .:::' .'• :,.;;'.';... Mr; B.K. Chakrawarthy, AdvDcate for the petitiongrs. Mr.Sushil Dubey,Advocateforresp6ndenl:No.2. ORDER (22.11.2016) •\ . ' '"• ' '-• .': ': SUNiL KUMARSINHAy. Heard. : ':: •••' ::::;s:1' :.:'1. '.:: : :. .;';:.':1 ' ;::'':.'''' .:-: The petitioner have filed this petition forinitiation bf proceedings of contempt against ths respondents'for alleged default in compliance of ordsrdated01fl7.2009passedby;this^burtw^ This Cpurtwhi!eaisposing#®;P.^^Nb.2638/2005"^^ ybllowingorderon 01.07.2009. x ;^-.' •* CONTEMPTCASE (CVN0.187Q010 ''ShriR.S.MarhaSiCQunselfprth&petitioners.^ Shri YaswantSinghThakur.Dy.A.G.fprtheState. Learned Counsel for the petitionere submits that this petition is^ pendingsjnce the year 1998.and'under the circumstenctes, he may be permitted towithdraw the presert petition with^ file suitabte representation t6 respQndents No, ^ & 2. He, however, prays for a direction tp respondents No. 1 & 2 for decidingtherepresentationsbmadeexpeditiQusly. Accordingly, thepetition iS-dismissedaswithdrawnWiththeliherly asaforesaid.Repnesentation,ifany,madebythepet!tioRerssHal! be decided bythe respondeHtsNb. 1 &2 expeditiouslypreferably within iri a period of two mpntKs fiwn the date of reeeipt of the same, strictly inaccordancewith law." , Mr.Chakrawarthysubmitsthatthereafterarepresentatt6nwasfiied by the petitioners on 24.Q7.2009 (Annexure-P-2) but the representation was not decided in time, therefore, the contempt petition was filed on '28.10.2009. •:::', . '..- . . '-' :'.-' ::.: :.- •: /;:.; :'..: .::.:,1 •'; A reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It has been contended in para 4 of the reply that in compliance of the order dafed 01.07.2009 passed bythis Court, therespondent No.2hasdecicledthe represenfatibn of the petitipners after faking into consideration, the baek grpunds of the case and aSer due consideTatipn a detajled ordercJa^ 02.41.2010 has been passed. A copy of the order dated 02.11.2010 has beenfiled as(Apnexure-R/2). Mr. Dubey, learned couhsel appearing on behatf pf respondent No.2, submits that there is no wiliful ciefault in cdmpliance of the order dated 01.07.2009.The respondentshayecompliedtheorderandhave deeidedtherepresentationon 02.11.20t0. Therepresgntatipnwas receivedon 25.07.209. Hesubmitsthatthereisdelayindisposalafthe representation but the delay was not interitional^ some time has been consumed intheprocess ofdeeidingthe representation. Having heard learned counsel forthe parties at length; having gone through the recordsof the contempt petition, since thesrepresentation of the petitipners has already been.decided by the resporrGlents and the respondents are explaining the delay^intakihg their decisipn, ! am ofthe opinionthatthe proceedingofthecontemptshoulclnpwbedropped. Accordingjy, the proceeaing of cpntempt initiated against the respondents^is dropped attKis stage. TheruteiSsuedagainsttherespohdentsstandsdiSchaised^ Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge Ste "'.y