HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BiLASPl£R , V Singie Bench: Hon’ble Shri H.L. Eattu, CJ. Coniem'pt FeiiiiO'n fw‘o. 146 of 2665 1 . Ram Kumar Yadav - 8m Shri Sant Ram Yadav, Aged abou§ — 42 years,"R/o -— ViHage —- THda Bandha, P.O. —- NeWra Via Suhela, Tehsi! '— Simga, District -— Raipur, (CG) Ramdheen Sahu, Sfo Shri Deendyal Sahuj: Aged about — 42 years, R/O Pest — Jara, ' P.S.- Palari, District - Raipur, (0.6.) Siyaram, S/o Shri Deendyal Dhruv, Aged about — 43 years, R/o — vmage — Kharamira, District- Raipur, (C.G.) Smt. Devkunwar Verma, Wla Shri‘ Bisheshwar Verma, Aged about — 42 years, RIO -— Gram Tunduwa, Tahsil -— Tilda, District~Raipun (CG) ' Ramlakhan Sinha, s/o Shri MR Sinha- Aged about 35 years Rio ViHage Gatapara,_ RSI. — Paiari,’District —- Raipur,’ (CG) Petitioners ontemnor. Shri Awadh Bihari Dubey; aged about 60 ' years, Director Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Mantraiay D.KrS. Bhavan, ~ Raipur, (CG ) State of Chhattisgam, Through : ecretary, Department oi Education, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, (C.G;) j espondent ormal Party etition under Section 2 (c) and 12 of Conte@t of Courts Act. 1971 read with Articte 215 of the Constitution of India. t: Shri BR Ghosn, counsel for the petitioners, Shri C.Jayant K. Rao, counselfor the respondents. ORAL ORDER t V i L (Passed on 265;, April, 2007) The'only diréctiOn issued by this Court in Writ Petiticm' No. 1265 of E 2005 was to direct respondent No.2 to. consider the representation tiled lby the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. I C S R F 2r P Presen ' '(2) Aneging that the respcndent No.2.has not considered ther representation and thereby dis'obeyed the orders and directions issued by V this Court, the petitioners are before this Court in this contempt petition. (3) The iespon’dents have entered their appearance through iearned counsel. (4). Atthetime of hearingofthecontempt petition. iearned counsel , for respondent No.2 would submit that they have considered the I ‘representation tiled by the petitioners and have passed appropriate orders. (5) Since the direction issued by this Court was to consider the representation and that representation was considered by respondent No.2. in my opinion, there is no deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this courts Therefore, l do‘not intend to take cognizance of this However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to question the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.2, if they so desire. Ordered accordingly. ‘cont‘empt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of. i