^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Petitioner Respondents Contempt Petition No. 175 of 2008 Smt. Shalini Dalela W/o Shri Prashant Shrivastava, Aged about 38 years, working as Project Officer, Woman & Child Development Department, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) \/ersus 1 P. Ramesh Kumar, The Secretary, Woman & Child Devetopment Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 2 Ms. Shaila Nigar, The Commissioner, Directorate of Woman & Child Development Department Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) 3 Smt. P Salam, The Deputy Director (Estt.) Directorate ofWoman & Child Development Department Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) (Contempt Petition under Article 215 ofthe Constitution of India read with Section 12 ofthe Contempt of Courts Act. 1971) Appearance : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate forthe petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer appears on behalf of Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (20.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. Petitioner, Smt. Shalini Dalela, has filed this petition for initiating the proceedings of contempt against the respondents for alleged willful disobedience in compliance of the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3984/2007. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 28.3.2008, observed vide Para-3 as under:- ^^ ContemntPetitionNo. 175 of2008 "3. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation along with a copy of the petition, if so advised. In view of the pendency of several representations for last so many years, it is desirable and proper to direct the State authorities as above to consider and decide the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of new representation." Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, submits that the reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed and as contended in Para-4 of the reply, the representation has already been disposed of vide order dated 26.6.2008, the copy of which has been filed as Annexure-R/2. He submits that there is some delay in disposal ofthe representation but the same is not willful as some time is consumed for completion of the formalities. Since the representation has already been decided on 26.6.2008 and the delay in disposal of the representation stands explained, 1 am of the opinion that there is no necessity of proceeding further in the matter. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge vv: Bu< n .fr'