IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE Fcl N0. ^^4 of 2010 IN THE MATTER OF: W.P. (C) No.2667/2009 between Petitioner: Anand Murti Agarwal Versus Respondents: State of C.G. <& others € iBfllB APPLICANT (Petitioner) --<.. ^$^"" .Anand Murti Agarwal, aged about 51 years, son of Shn" Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal, resident of Village Rasni, Tahsil Arang. District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Vs CONTEMNOR Shri Taran Prakash Sinha, Sub bivisional Officer (R) / Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C(5) PETITION ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACJ. 1973. WiVll »*11<S|» '3^ ^|qj<nq, ^TTl^^Ko, [®i<rll<rl^< .^^T.c^^ (c^u'2<;ity2^itr) ^^.........................>.................y^2QQ 3TT^?T ^T fiFTW 'cW 311^1 Sfr»^licD 3TI^?T TT5RT ( ytl^^) wnw ^if^r ^TT^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan 29-07-2011 Shri Manish Thakur, counsel fc^ Shri Alok Bakshi, counsel for r^ disobedience of order dated 15-1 W.P.(C)No.2667of2009. It is the case of the petitione| obl^[d4flT1 'RTO^f ^f 'fe1^ <r'l^t< '^3TRTH3TT^T yiri^astava, J. r the petitioner. Ispondent. hleard. This petition has been file{d by the petitioner alleging willful p6-2009 passed by this Court in ^that the respondent was directed to consider and decide the representatioh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved parties and on meritsjof the case, in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioijier submits that the respondent did not decide the claim of the petitioner, as| stipulated. The decision in the matter] contempt petition. Learned counsel ft| liable for willful disobedience of thd absolved from its liability merely becaj directed by this Court within the time |has been taken, only after filing of the Irther submitted that the respondent is order of the Court and cannot be jse the order has been complied with. He further submitted that the reasons [sxplained in the reply do not show that there was any bonafide delay on ttjie part of the respondent. It is also submitted that under these circumstarl for by the respondent deserves to be r| On the other hand, learned COL^ to the reply, submitted that the matter] by the respondent and on 29-06-200^ were issued. Thereafter, the matter wa|s taken on 03-07-2009, and on several dates thereafter. Notices issued to because the address was not cleal ces, the unconditional apology prayed ^jected. nsel for the respondent, while referring relating to the petitioner was taken up , the case was registered and notices ofher parties could not be served, t- and after the other party entered ff, <H-11^1M—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. I^i ~3~^[ ^jjqi^^^ ^Tll^^Ko, [®l<ni<H^< ^tWti tn*iicn 'TF[ 200 3ff^?T'SRT'f^TW ^w sn^ sft*iicb Tumane 3TT^T ^S^K (^ql^q^) 1FRTTW ^rf^T 3TT^?I . —2- ^rguments on 01-09-2009. Thereafter, lccasions. On number of occasions, the On 05-03-2010, a report ofTahsildar is required to be decided in complian respondent had no intention to disob^ <=M^I<31<<1l TTFT^f ^f 'feTSt <f^^l< '^3fRTH3T1^T appearance, the case was listed for the matter was adjoumed on various 4 petitioner himself sought adjournment was called. After that, reminder was s|ent on 28-07-2010. The Tahsildar sent his report vide letter dated 28-08-2(j)10, but the same was not received. Thereafter, another reminder was sen|t on 26-11-2010 stating that the matter ^e of the order of the Court and finatty the report was submitted by the Tahjsildar on 27-01-2011, the matter was decided and final order was passed ^n 01-02-2011. It is submitted that the y the order of the Court and time was consumed in deciding the case onjmerits, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. He submits thajt for the delay caused, the respondent prays for unconditional apology. Taking into consideration the si|jbmission made by learned counsel for the parties and considering that after [the order was passed, the respondent has taken up the matter and final ord^r has been passed in the case of the petitioner and further taking into consijderation the reasons which have been stated in the reply, on account of whi(j the order of the Court, I am indinedl apology tendered by learned counsel inclined to proceed further in the matt^ ^h, delay was caused in compliance of to accept the submission made and or the respondent. Therefore, 1 am not r. Rule is therefore discharged. Accordingly, the petition is finall|y disposed off. »-"'%r'"°" NUy^^Ny^ll^, ^SRt^ra—FS/l40—2/2011—1,50,000.