^J^|||j|||<||^^|^-||^iy||^||^ qo HIGH COURT 6P CHHATn8CUURH._BILAS?UR 8.B.: HOyBLB 8HRI JU8TICB SUNIL KOMAR SSSSHA CONBMPT CA8B CIVIL N0. 224/2009 PBTITIONBR Ramesh Kumar Soni, Upper Dwision Clerk, , S/o Lafe Haaumat Ram, Aged aboiat 68 years, Jfla Rajnatidgaon, Rajnaadgaoa (C,G.) VERSUS Panchayat Distdct CONTBMNOR Shri D.S. Misra, Sectetaiy, Panchayat and Rural Dev6lopmtent Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur C.G. CONTBMPT PBTITION UNDBRARTICUS 215 OF THB CiONSTITUTION OF INDIA AooeaTauce: Mr. S,S. Rajput, Advocate forfhe petitioner, Mr, Sumesh Bajaj, Advcx^ate for fhe respondent ORAL ORBBR (12.07.2010) SimiL KUWIAR 8ISHA.J. Heaid. Petitioner- Ramesh Kumar Soni has filcd laais peititioo. for mitiation of proceediag of contempt agaiast fhe rcspondent for wiUful disobedience of the order passed by ttois Court i& W,P.(^ No. 2275/2009 on4& May, 2009. This Court disposed ofthe said writ petition by passiag fhe fQUowiag oiders:- <SLeamed oounset appearir^g for ihe f^titiowsr, on instructicyns, subrmis that the petitiener does not want to contest the matter on merit, at this stage. ffowever^ leanwd oounse? pnxys that the respondent aulhorities may be CONBMPT CASB (Cl N0< 224/2009 directed to consider the pending represcntation of the petitioner within a stipulcxtedperiod on the bcws offfw l^Mef dated 27.09.2008 (Amiexure-p/8) wmtten l^f the Chief Executive Offi<^r, Zilla Panchayat, Rajnandg^ion to fhe Secyetary^ Departmeni af Panchayat and J^ural Development, Govemment QfCfihaltisgarh. Shri Thakur, leamedDy. Adyocate Creneral appeayingfw the State subfnits that the representation of the petWomer shcitt be considered and dedded^ in aooordance with law cxs well as in the ligftU of the letter dated 27.09.2008, as stasted above, as early as possible at any rate withtn cn auter Vbnftit ofsijcweeksfrom ihe dafe ofreoeipt ofa oopy ofthis order, In view of the above staiement made by the leamed oounsel for ihe State^ according to the leamed cowwel far the petitioner rwihing surmves in this petitionfor cu^udicatiorL Aocordingly^ the petition stands dSsposed of.J9 Mr, S.S, Rajput, leanied coiinsel for the petitiona:, submits that fhough, 6 weeks time was therc to decide fhe reprasentetioa but fhe same was 3iot decided ia time, therefere, the petitioner had to file fhis contempt petition. The rcply of fhe contempt petitton h^is becti filed. As per pleadiags ia reply, the representatioifc ofthe petitioiier was decided on 15.09.09. A copy of the decisioii has beeii ffled as Annexure-R-1. Though, fhere is some delay in. decidixig fhe rcprcsientatiosi of fhe petitioner but the saxae does not appear to be &UL willful violation offhe order dated 4th May, 2009 passed by this Court, Siace fhe xiepresexitatfon offhe petitioner has already Ibeea decided aod fhe delay appears to be boxiajBde, I am of tihje opmi(Mi that present is a fit case, ia which the proceedmg ofcontempt now should be dropped, Accordiag, tfae Contempt proceedmg is disposed of, at tlds stage, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge