IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. ContemptCas®o.J.^..42011 8i"Bh B'nc11 /' PETITIONER /. /^ K. Pande S/o Late J.R. Pande .^></ aged about 72 years ./ y/>^'^' retired Excise Sub Inspector \^)^'^/xv R/o 49, Anand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ^^' ^' ^'^\^^ ^^/'^ VERSUS R^PONDENTS (1) ShriA.P. Shrivastava CONTEMNORS Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Govt. ofM.P. Vallabh Bhawan, BHOPAL (M.P.) (2) Shri Arun Kumar Bhatt, Excise Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior(M.P.) PETITION U/S 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT r/w ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. w^- qr- IM^^S ^ ^^•'\_^/,s^^ Xi-HC—78 ^T^T'^T^W •afm^^T^R'NT Hf*t^lT «»N8<»» 'S'Si ^WW^, VSWWW, [^viW^. Grv^. (^^<C9^.(^/^) •"^ 200 ^T^?TT^^> (lic<I^^) WHW Trf^T 3?1^?T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Bhrivastava, J. 31-10-2011 Shri Yogesh Pandey, counsel Shri S. S. Rajput, counsel for n Heard. This contempt petition has willful disobedience of order dated 1 W.P.(S)No.2331 of 2005. ft>r the petitioner. |spondents. bejen filed by the petitioner atleging F-06-2010 passed by this Court in At the outset, learned counse| view of the subsequent developmeil which have now been passed, the the matter any more. for the petitioner submits that in hts in the matter and the orders, p^titioner is not interested to pursue On the other hand, learned coij that in compliance of order of the Coprt considered by convening review D.1 passed on 17-10-2011, by v^iich, notional seniority from an earlier date| This Court vide its order datejd review D.P.C. to consider the case 05-08-1997. The reply filed bythe re^p order was passed by this Court, step^ It is also stated that as records in rel^t ready available, the matter remaine^ consultation with the State of Madl1\ ^ '5FRf^rfN 'HFT^ff ^' f^^ iFjt^K ^3?fw^T?^T nsel for the respondents submitted jrt, case of the petitioner was duly .C., and now, an order has been the petitioner has been granted 15-06-2010 had directed to hold the petitioner for promotion as on ^pondents woutd show that after the were taken to hold review D.P.C. tion to the period of 1997 were not pending and the matter required /a Pradesh, for whteh, steps were ^' ^v ^iW^^iW '<m ^ii^r ih7:RN' Tumane / ^. ~5^ ^QT^^S^ W^fWJ^, f5T<?TRT3?: 'SITO^T^^W •^ 200 sn^? -v^ (^ty^) -^^m ^ttc¥-3^ —^ also taken. In the reply, it was also \ would be decided within a period ojf this Court that orders with regard passed granting him notional senior|ty In view ofthe aforesaid respondents and the submissionj parties, 1 am not inclined to pro^eed therefore discharged. The petition \i ^p^^r ^T^n ^ fe^r ^T^K ^ 3'tRm ^n^? stated that the case of the petitioner two months. Now, it is informed to :o case of the petitioner have been from an earlier date. circuhstances, the reply submitted by the [made by learned counsel for the further in the matter. Rule is finatly disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge it