•I 10" If UHS-ii TiTlr-iMS nuc.s ^v< about Kurnar Gandharva, aged years, S/o Shri Radhelal, Taiab, P/o Lormi.Tah. Lormi, District Biiaspur (C.G.) B.P. Gupta, S/'o Lalan Sao, Tahsildar, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri S.P. Kaie, Counsel forthe patitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Counsel for the responden) (16.11.2009) IL ^%'^§ Petltioner Rajendra Kumar Gandharva has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondeRiJpr wiiifully violating the order dated 5 of July 2007 passed by thls Court in VV.P,(L) No.3887/2006.The respondent herein was a!so respondent No.2 in the sald Writ Petition, !t appears that the petitioner was awarded certain amount in Case No.7/W.C.A./96 (NF) by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act-cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur on 29.12.1998. The matter was sent for recovery berore the Tehsildar, Lormi, Dfetrict Bilaspur (respondent herein), who had to recover the amount from respondent No.3 in the writ petition. The petitioner had •'^•^._.-^'' to file the writ petition, because, he was not paid the amount, as according to the petitioner, the recovery proceedings were not properly drawn by the respondent. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 5 of July 2007 in presence of the respondent, who ;ave the undertaking to publish the auctton notice in tvi/o wideiy circulated newspapers in District Bilaspur for putting the property on auction, so that the recovery may be satisfied by the auction proceedings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of ths petitioner submits that the respondent did not comply with this order, therefore, he is iable for proceedings against contempt. On the other hand, learned counsei appearing on behalf ofthe respondent referring to the contents of Annexure R-6^submits that the respondent has fully complisd with the order passed by this Court and he is trying his best to complete the proceedings of recovery for making payment to the petitloner. She submits that as per the undertaking given by the respondent before the writ Court, auction notices were issued in daiiy Desh Bandhu and daily Dainik Bhaskar by the order of the respondent on 13.12.2007 and 23.12.2007, for the re-proposed date of auction on 02.01.2008. She explains that publications were not made for the auction fixed on 12.07.2007, because the order itself was passed by this Court on 05.07.2007 and the time ieft for publication was very short. It is for this reason, another date was fixed and the above publications were , made. She prays for discharging the rule issued by this Court. have gone through the contents of the repiy filed by the respondent. The respondent has filed the order sheets of the concerned proceedings. After going through the order sheets of the proceedings as aiso the pubiications made in two Daily Newspapers filed as Annexure R-6, 1 am satisfied that there is no wiltful disobedience on the part of the respondent, so as to proceed against him in the matter of contempt. The respondent in the capacity of a Quasi ,,.ssay&~. y\ 1 •Y y j ^ •iisaasff8" CONTEMPT PET! Judiciai Officsr is drawing the proceedings of recovery, which are pverned by the provisions of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Any action taken by the respondent or any mistake committed by him is also revisabie under the said Code itseif, as it is a complete Code in reiation to the functioning of the Revenue Authority. in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to proceed further in thls contempt petition. The petition has no merit. The same is liabie to be dismissed j is herebv dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ivns