%€N€§$M¥i @MMwH BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR f CHHATTISGARH l m CONTEMPT PETITION (QN Cm No. 6‘ f "23 12mg“ APPLICANT Payarelal Ahirwar, aged about 32 gm NM resident years, Son of! of T Shri I Colony, Bharosi Quarter La! AhinA/ar No. I, Type ~V, High Schoo! Road, Geedam, District: South Ba’star, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh VERSUS KR. Kirdatt, Director, Agriculture, “W” / D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh M NON-APPLJCANT \W CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 M ANWM A$A -... .. I: -‘_.x _-‘AA_u..nL‘ -HLWJL ~13 \‘r,;&W¢m«uwWww w" ‘ v t " “M SB : Hon’bie Shri Manindra Mohag‘ 13-01 £011 Shri Ann Tripathi, counsel for t1 Shti Praveen Das, counsei for Heard. This contempt petition has bee that though this Court passed 'an directing the respondent / Dkector petitioner and pass appropriate orc appiicant has not taken any decision Court and has thereby cammitted cor Learned counsei for the respo ' the reply and drawing the attention oi submits that in respectfui compiianci has communicated the matter to ct: representation that as per letter Agriculture. Bhopal, Madhya Prades been finalised and in view of the circular dated 22/3/01 of the State organisation Ceil) the services of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned o the respondent I authority to the guideiines and his authority in the m2 and communicated the same to the order of this Court. He further submi is due to bonafide reasons as befo $hrivastava, J. 1e petitioner. the respondent. in fried by the petitioner on the pleadings order on 15f1/07 in W.P.(s) No.02l07 to look into the representation oi the iers in accordance with iaw. the non~ in the spirit of the order passed by this itempt. 1dent referring to the averments made in this Court to Annexure R14 dated 5/3/08 e of the order of this Court, respondent 1er authorities and has decided on the dated 29/12/07 of the Directorate of h, the matter reiatihg to aiiocation has provisions and guideiines contained in of Madhya Pradesh GAD. (State Re- petitioner could not be aiiocated to the ounsel for the respondent submitted that best of his understanding of various ltter of allocation, has taken the decision petitioner, which is the compiiance of rs that the deiay which has been caused re taking decision, the respondent had [as area s inciuding his counterparts in the $tate of Madhya Pradesh and therefore t decision could not be taken within the time stipulated by this Court for whi h the respondent submits unconditionai apoiogy by submitting that he had n intention to disobey or fiout the order of this Court. A perusal of communication ated 5/3i08 (Annexure R14) shows that the respondent has taken a decisio on the representation of the petitioner and communicated the same to th petitioner. it is also found that‘even though this Court had directed the espondent to decide the matter vide its order dated 15/01/07, the repres ntation was not directly submitted to respondent but to different autho ties, which was finally routed to the respondent. The averments made in he reply also shows that the respondent took up the matter and after commu icating the matter with other authorities, dnaity decided the matter and com unicated the same to the petitioner. it has been submitted on affidavit th the respondent never entertained any intention to disobey the order this Court and has submitted his unconditionai apology. Deepii in this view of the matter, the nuie is discharged. The petition is finally disposed off. Sd/— Judge Mohan Shrivastava Manindra (metal! ;