jGHCQURTOF JUD.ICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR : HON'BLS SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. Contempt Petitlon No. 92 of 200o 1. Uday yahavidyaiaya, Through its prlncipal Dr. P.L. Yadav, aged about 47 years S/o Shri G.R. Yadav, Near ITI Colony, Chhawni, Bhilai, district Durg -(C.G.) 2. Chhattisgarh Hindi Parishad Samiti, Chhawni Bhiial,, District Durg through Its Secrefary Dr. Tirath Ra/m Sahu, about 30 years, S/o Dhanush Ram Sahu, resident of Ch'nawni, Bhllaj, District Durg (C-G) Vs: 1. Dr. Laxrnan Chaturvedi aged about 60 years at present working as a Vlce Chancelior, Pt. Ravishankar Shukia Unlversity, Raipur Dlstrict - Raipur (CG) 2. Krsshna Kumar Chandrakar, aged about 45 years af present working as a Regjstrar, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Unlversity, Raipur Dlstrict - Raipur (CG). Present: Shri Vishnu Koshta, learned counsei for the petitioners. Shrl KanaR Tiwari, Seamed Sr. Advocate wlth Shri Jltendra Pai'i, Eearned counseS for fhe respondents. (Passed on 24CT August, 2006) The complaint In tnis vyrit petltlon is that the directlon Issued by this Court in Para 7 of the order dated 03.04.2006 passed In W.P. No.1622 of 2006 has been disobeyed by the third respondent deliberately and wantonty. 1 do not flnd any substance In this allegation. Para 7 of the Order reads as follows: sl(7) in the result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petltlon is aliowed and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to forward the ilst of staff/facuity as approved by the Registrar of the Unjversjty to the 3 respondent aio.ng with the order of affiSiation. It is stafed that the petltioners have aiready deposited affiliation fee. if the respondents 1 and 2 requlre the petltloners to perform any other formalities in the mafter of issulng grant of affliiation, the petitioners shaii perform the same, and that liberty is reserved to the petitioners/1 (2) Now, It transpires that a factuaily incorrect subrnission was rnade before the Court that the petitloner had already deposited affiliation fee. Admitiediy, either on the date of the order or tlll date, the affjliation fee is not deposlted with the Universlty. it was not deposited notwlthstanding bringing thls to the notice of the petitioner by the University after the dismissal ofthe writ petition. The Unlversity, accordlng to me, quite rightly has informed the petltionsrs that the affiliatlon could not be granted to them because the affiilation fee Is not deposlted. (3) Having heard the learned counsei for the petitloners for conslderabie tirne and perused the material doouments annexed to the conte'mpt petition, 1 arn satisfled that there was absoiutely no much less sincere attempt on the part of the petitioner to deposit the afrlllatjon fee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the third respondent has Vv'antonly and deijbsratsiy flouted ti-ie writ issued by this Court. Hence, notice is discharged and contempt case Is closed. No costs. ^,^'^ Sd/- ChiefJustice