; INTHE HON'BLli; J-llUH CUUk'I U^ CrlHAlTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) No.'3M / 2011 Sintfe Bench PETITIONER /••'lA ^ ..^ •••'1/ ..••''^"'.-••^ ..y./''y^') /y^G '^' 2., .^* 3. ^^^ Rikhiram Kant, S/o. Shri Ramkumar Kant, aged about 36 years, Posted as Cook in Pre Matric SC Boys Hostel, Pachpedi (Loharshi), District-Bilaspur (CG) Dhurup Lal S/o. Shri Ganesh Prasad, Aged about 35 years, posted as Cook in post Matric, ST Boys Hostel Gaurela, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Shailendra Sharma, S/o. Dinbandhu Sharma, Aged about 24 years, posted as Watchman, in Govt. Higher Sec. School, Lalpur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) < Vijay Kun-iar Soni, S/o. Radheshyam Soni, aged about 32 years, posted as Cook in Pre-Matric ST Boys Hostel Pachpedi, Bilaspur (CG) 5.., Sunil Kumar Vaishav, S/o. Shri ^ Ramastar Das, aged about 22 years, posted as Cook, in Pre Matric SC Girls Hostel, Pathariya, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 6, Makhan Lal Sahu, S/o. Shri Miththu ^ Lal Sahu, aged about 23 years, posted as Cook in Pre Matric Boys ST Hostel Lalpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 7. Rakesh Pandey S/o. Ramkrishna Pandey, aged about 30 years, posted as Cook in Post Matric Boys Hostel, Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1. Thakur Ram Singh, Collector, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. B.K. Rajput, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT .OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE"215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioners named above most humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under:- RESPONDENTS ff sn^i ^r (<•<'•* fl^t ^rff^r ?tl^E<t) -3S[ ^iqi(»)Aj^ yTi|y'!s, fsidiyy Cen^^r C^s^fr)^^ l^\ ^p Hl*«?11 SlatlTcd 200 SII^T 'q^qr (ipig^Er) ^aiW^ifeCT^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Wlanindra Mohd 14-09-2011 Shri N. K. Chatterji, counsel Heard. Learned counsel for the '^i^CT^lt 4N<rff T? f^^ ^f^$R ^affinsiA'B n Shrivastaya,^!. :or the petitioners. petitioners submits that earlier the petitioners had filed writ petitioa.befcre this Court aggrieved by notice dated 06-04-2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Assistant Commissioner. In the aforesaid writ petition, statement vj/as made by the learned State counsel that the notice dated 06-04-201 1 i and the fact that the petitioners h^ve been given a notice shows that no final decision in the matter has bi after the receipt of reply. Considi petition was finally disposed off shows tentative opinion and not respondents shall duly consider th appropriate enquiry before coming ^en taken and the same would be only ^ring the aforesaid statement, the writ [sbserving that the show cause notice a final decision and further that the i^ reply filed by the petitioners and hold [o any conclusion adverse to the interest of the petitioners. It is submitted t>|iat though reply has been submitted by the petitioners on 13-07-2011, till also submitted that in the spirit of The order passed by this Qourt petition was disposed off observirjg this Court against the notice d^ted submission made by learned St^te petitioners that without considering! only a tentative opinion of the authority tlate, no decision has been taken. It is |he order of the Court, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to t^ke decision in the matter expeditiously, but decision has not been taken, w(iich amounts to willfu] disobedience. on 04-07-2011 shows that the writ that the petitioners have approached 06-04-2011 and in view of the counsel. It is not the case of the the reply, certain orders have now been ^ •••—^ B" ^^;^?1'. ^ g3S». :a i^J/ 'w.-^' XI-HC—78 ^s[ •<it'4iw'4, aflly'is, fsidiyy,'!, •>\ 3n^r^TR;-fi=fc 'WF 3Ti^?F ^t^fct; Tumane NIHIW thHlch "^200 311^!?I'q?tp ('cpf^Sf^q) ^RnwHfersn^i L. pabbyd. Tliy iiidllui lias riul beeii ofr Moreover, the notice dated 06-( Commissioner, and it is found that the respondent-Collector with a cop] crit<i(Ftn<i1t ^Rwci^ ^f fe^ ;rf^R^R ^r sifOT an^ft dccidod by thc roopondonto till dato. 1-2011 was issued by the Assistant |the petitioners have submitted reply to / to the Assistant Commissioner. In that view of the matter, l|am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents. <- ! Accordingly, the petition is di$missed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- , Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge _/-/