THE^HON'BLE^HIGH CQURT^^CHHArTKGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case(rt/'u^f) N0. l5^ /2011 :TITIONERS ry-^ ^ ^y^ ^^^^ /\\ Y 1. Ramsay Sahu ;; Aged about 31 Years, S/o Shri Balduram Sahu, r^ R/o Gram and Post-Goghana Tehsil- Nawagarh District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) •<•• 2. Rajkumar Sahu Aged about 32 Years S/o Shri Bhulturam Sahu, R/o Gram and Post- Godhna Via Kharod District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. Manishankar Kashyap Aged about 32 Years S/o Shri Hiralal Kashyap, R/o Gram and Po'st- Salkhan Via Kharod District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ESPONDENT: VERSUS ONTEMNOR) Vivek Dhand Aged about 57 years S/o Not known to the petitioners Presently posted as Principal Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development tf-Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G..) PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT RE/SD WITH _ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA ^ E \ Q ^ ^ ~^?^^^s "s XI-HC—78 *(Wy(T Sb*1lcb 'S'ST -^ww^, y-dly'Ko, fs)ciiyy,< ..^.ri.....C.^..C^.../..^/^o sn^T 'WK ('^?iguT^i) an^r ^ii-fiFfh? "?raf 3TT^T ^W!^ \ SB ; Hon'ble Shri Manindra BBohari Shrivastava, J. clarified tlie 4.11.2011 Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Sbri Shrijith C. S. Nair,| Heard on admissien. This contempt petitio^i aUeging wiUful disobedience cjl inW.P. (S) No.6880/09, M.C.C. No. 379/2010. Learned counsel for order was passed in. writ p< clarified in M.C.C. 379/201)3 representation was made to 16.8.2010 along with fhe copj directions of (he Court were and request was made to 4 possible. However, fhe mattej was taken on the sionths stipulated by the file fhe iastant petition on 11) issued by fhls Court on 21.' officer subordinate to resp0]jii (Annexure R-1) deciding the ri| c^unsel for the petitioners. |counsel for the respondent has been ffled by fhe petitioners |fthe order dated lat Jiily, 2010 passed vide order dated 27*h July, 2010 ia representaljion Coilrt i*i'<I<lf4)-< i?praf 4 fstS '^regn ^r siRn aii^fi petitioners submits that after fhe itition on 1st July, 2010, whlch was ), vide order dated 27ih July, 2010, |toe respondent vide Annexure C-3 on ^ of the order passed by the Coiirt. The sjpecificaUy quoted ia the representation [ecide fhe representation as early as el- reiuained undecided. As no decision even after expiry of fhe period of 3 >^lt, the petitioners were constrained to 16.2011 and notice were directed to be [.2011. It was onty fhereafter fhat an passed an order on 27.8.2011 ^presentation. espoijident -1-. ..>" ^ -!e:'3ES^S^>. '' •^^^'••. 'lfe. .f '-'&,...•' s»-»Xl-HC—78 311^1 ^I Iti-li* W!I 3II^[ st>»< 75T "41'41d<4, •ES^I^I'Ko, lq<?1iyy ••W^ 200 S^ tTTOT (^qfy^q) TOiiw^to sii^i 2 apolo^y On fhe other hand, referring to fhe avenaents representation was subinit^i considered and, fhereafterj representation has been decf Court. He further submits representation was not fiuictioning of fhe uuier the delay of about 7 iaoi( respondent prays for respondent would be carefiil wifh. fhe order of the Court. The reply of the respoj received on 16.8.2010. Ui| representation was required monfhs i.e. on or before representation has been dec^ and fhe reason shown for suc] functionaiy and procediiral fhe Court is quite vague. It is few days. There is no specific delay in deciding the represer| is caused due to the fiinctioi] sordid state of aBairs. It has 'tiWfci'il-f Hllilf ^ fsIZt <i^1t{]< ^aiRii? aii^i ^.eamed couasel for the respondent, ^nade in fhe repty, subuiits that fhe ;d on 16.8.2010, which was duly vide order dated 27.8.2011, the ^ded, coiuplying with the order of fhe ft}at fhe delay ia taking decision on fhe ir(tentional, but on account of fhe niac^unery of fhe State functionaiy and for |ifhs in decidiag the representation, It is furfher submitted fhat fhe jand vigUant in future while complyuig (ident shows fhat representation was (^der fhe order of fhe Court, the to be decided within a period of 3 16th January, 2011. However, fhe |ded after a delay of about 7 months :|i delay is tnner machineiy of ttie State a^pect. The explanation for delay before not a case that fh.e delay was of only ]detaU as to why ftiere was so much of ;4tation. The reply shows that the delay r^uig of fhe State machinery. This is a tteen found in number of cases fhat fhe ^ XI-HC—78 311^1 ^ilf^fe ^TSff 3TI^T^^*lict> ^\'^> '3^ "41Alld-4, "^xftOT^, (s«'liyi< ••W^ 200 an^ipRTC^fg.i^i) TOiIWBfCT 311^1 -s- .ti^fcf^-i -w^ ^ fs^ <r»f<<;i< ^ratfinaii^i orders of fhe Court have ^iot beeri complied within fhe tiine stipulated. Though, it would ^epend on facts and circumstances of each and eveiy case as to wh^tfaer delay was beyond the control of tfae of&cer-respondent in decjidiag fhe case and whether it was iatentional or bona fide due U fhat serious steps have not bej some vaUd reasons, fhis Court finds in taken in the present case to decide fhe case of fhe petitioner wiftun the tune stipulated. It is not fhe case of the respondent that ^ecause of some uievitable delay or circLuiistances, decision coul(| not be take and fhen Coiirt was approached with any prayer f<j>r extension of tune. However, taMng into consideration fhat fhe r^presentation has been decided and apology has been tendered be proceed further in fhe matter. care is required to ensure fhai compUed with, but in cases wl fore this Court, I am not incUned to [t is, however, cautioned tfaat utmost ; orders of fhe Court are not only be .ere there is a tuue lunit, it should be EraveeQ compUed with withia the stipu]|ated time Umit and m case the of&cer finds fhat fhere is som.e rea^on beyond his control resultmg in delay, what is expected is fhat |ie should approach fhe Court with a prayer for extension of time ratjtier thaa sittiag over fhe matter until fhe contein.pt petition is filed. Wifh the aforesaid obse^vations, the rule is discharged and fhe petition is finaUy deposed of. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^ 1