.^^..< STngtoBeneh IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGAW AT BILASPUR t-^a^tS^- ContemptReWwu No. 2-^3 / 2011 Petitioner ^ ^-^y ..•••""' .,l;:i(lw" ..••''" ^y^<^/ \' B^'' ...<"\^ ^" ^ \^ Contemnor Respondent Pramod Kumar Mishra, S/o Late R.S. Mishra, aged 'about 47 years , Incharge Sports Officer, Sports and youth Welfare (Kalyan) Department, Korba, Presently working on the post of Physical Instructor (PTT) at 6ovt. ler Secondary Schoot '<-. Versus Korba (C.6.) Rajpai Tyagi, Collector District - Korba (C.6.; CONTEMPT PETirCQN UNDER SECTION 1Z OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACTREAb WITH ARTTCLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION -QEZNMA_ •y' ^ T=f-^l'41d-4, ^Ti1'Llil<o, 'f^TTCT3 3' *(T*<VII t»>*liq> £3 \}\ ^ 3H^I 'CR^ (^??3^T) 311^1 qa l<-t W ,gn T( *t|l* pt^; <•!?-• wiiwotowtn SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra iviohan Shrivastava, J. 26-08-2011 Shri Anil Sinah Rajput, coun Heard. Learned counsel for the.pet No.5308/10 filed by the petitioner the respondent to consider the res ^ei for the petitioner. made thereln and may not be taKji directed to pass appropriate orde( the petitioner. Learned counsel for the pe1| the Court along with representatior) 3/2/2011 but even after expiry o! towards compiiance of order of ih ettl^ta^t*! ^w^^ '^' ^3ifOT3~:'W tioner submits that on 14/1/2011, W.P(S) was finally aisposed off with directions to jponse of the petitioner to the observation fen on record. The respondent was also after affording opportunity of hearing to iitioner submits that the order passed by was submitted before the respondent on six months, no steps have been taken 1^ Court and tili date, no notice has been given to the petitioner affording olsportunity of hearing as directed by this Court. Learned counsel for the p not taking any decision in the matt^r, has flouted the order of this Coun. On 14/1/2011, certain direct counsel for the petitioner states th^t the petitioner submitted representation on 3/2/2011. Though order datedl nevertheiess, the orders passed b with, within a reasonable time. It. Considerina the natureof exercise •titioner submits that the respondent, by pns were issued by this Court. Learned 14/1/2011 does not stipulate^ any time limit within which, the directlon^ are required to be complied with, [/ the Court are required to be complied |s noticed that six months have elapsed. Iwnich was required to be untaken bv the »lltlfli|flsflflliii«lkW,<ld.li<il|M—FS/l 40—2/2011—1,50,000. ^ r //'"^ \ 1 '&saas^ K •Vtaieff—^ ;• Y/'^ry' ^BS-S^- an^lw f<-fi<»> Tpff sn^t aiHiqi Deepii ^c'" '?"['<<i^i<*i^, 'a'tily'is, f®idiyy,< Ce^e_.(c)\^.S^]l "•^200 sn^i ''PRT (>iciE^»(ti<i) iCTwatefOT^i -^ respondent, the matter ought tc| passed, even in the absence of tl within a reasenable time, dependi et)i<iid'iit'rf *if*i<?i? ^f r~s^ Xr ^; stfin s''^' have been decided. If the orders are |me limit, are required to De complied with ttQ upon the nature of exercise required to be undertaKen. Considerinfl the totality oficircumstances, particularly that any time limit has not been fixed, at presejit, I am not inclined to issue notice in the matter. However, if no steps are this Court and the matter is not within a period of two months fro^n the dafe of receipt of copy of this order, the petitioner wouid be at liberty tc( 'he petition is finalty disposi taken towards compiiance of the order of finaliy decided as directed bv the Court revive this Detition. id off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge W»f[K<1^)<1 ljil"Uri«,(U-li^lid—FS/140—2/2011—1,50;000. ^