BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT CONTEMPT BILASPUR ''No. 3C>\ /2011 PETITIQNER_ R.S. Rathore, S/o Late H.P. Rathore, Aged about 51 years, .••7c>-..--'-^.<. Agea aoout i>l years, ^\^y..•••'"" In char9e_ S-.D-0- (R-E-S-.)' ^"'^X?-'' ...< Janpad Panchayat Makdi, ./•"'.^"'...•••''A\ District- Bastar, (C'.G.) <»6'<y) ..-•'^r' ' ' R/o D.N.K. Colony Kondagaon, District- Bastar (C.G.) ^%'^ ^y^' VERSUS RESPQND^NTS 1. P. Ambalgan, Collector, District Bastar, C.G. 2. Manohar Singh Paraste, Development Commissioner Department of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development. Pt. Ravishankar University Premises Raipur, C.G. PETITION UNDER ARTICJLE^215^)F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ^ST ^i<<i(riq, 0xily'i<D, fqyiyy *<l*i?tT ^qra» C.^.C^^^^ 311^1'q^i' (' p) sn^v w R-ii<* 'cTSfT Sff^T sh+iiqi ?^IIW^toOT^t ^r'Li^d4ti HWV^ ^f 1^rt <f^i^i< ^i'3lfOT3I!^I [SB : Hon'ble Shri Maniadra Blohan' Shrivastava, J.1 5.8.2011 Shri Salyendra Sahu, coi^nsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. By this petition, wiUftil d 2010 passed in W.P. (S) No.: passed in Contem.pt Petitmn (C] |isobedieuce of order dated 8th April, J538/10 and oider dated 11.3.2011 No.90/11 has been alteged. Leamed counsel for fhel dues relating to trveUinj pay etc. were not being pa\ approached fhis Court by fitin^ disposed of vide order dated No. 1538/10, directmg the petitioner and consider and appropriate orders. representation to the Collectoi( (he Chief Executi.ve OfBcer oj Bastar, brinuig to fheir noti(: Janpad Panchayat, Darbha ij: various dues by issuing a notij: decision was taken, fhe No.90/ 11, which was also CoUfcctor Thereafter petitioner subinits that as various aUo^ance, medical aUowance, arrears of }d to fhe petitioner, the petitioner ife W.P. (8)1538/10, which was finaUy |8*fa April, 2010 passed in W.P. (S) to examine the grievance of fhe |iecide fais representation aad pass fhe petitioner preferred a and also filed representation before Janpad Panchayat, Darbha, Distt. |:e the order passed by the Court. ijiitiated proceedings for decision on ;e dated 23.10.2010. However, as no pe^itioner filed Conteiupt Petition (C) disijiosed of, observing fhat fhe petitioner ^ -I- r XI-HC—78 TSf -^WW,, SSTily'ltf, fs|WI'Hll,< NIN^tl •Eh'irai ^200 sn^T TPR|' (lj°iij°<<'er) . sn^i ^i f(;-<itfi ?SITT 3ff?fT shHlch j TOIIW^ifelSIT^I -E- inay approach the CoUector 1 decision on his representation to the Chief Executive OfBcer, the representation is not deci) qiM^^-i +iw<nf'Eff^<?t^^t< ^i'sfRmsn^n lo seeK information with regard to |and/ca- any direction issued t?y him reserving Uberty to revive petitiou if led in two laonfhs. Thereafter, fhe petitioner again preferred repr^sentation to fhe Collector and fhen on 7.4.2011, Chfi Collector difrected fhe Executive Engineer and Chief Executive Officer to take make payiaent of all pending d^ies as per rules ia order to avoid any situation of contempt of fhe Executive Engineer and Chief personal interest in fhe matter and order of the Court. Thereafter, on 15.4.2011, fhe Executive E^igineer sent mem.o to the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad P^inchayat, Darbha to make available necessary records so that th^ matter could be forwarded to fhe Treasury for withdrawal. On 2^.4.2011, fhe Chief Executive Of&cer, Janpad Panchayat forwarded ti|> fhe Execufive Enguieer the relevant records. Leamed counsel for fhe jietitioner submitted that aU said and done tUl date the gnevance oft^ie petitioner has not been redressed. He also subinits that fhe Collector was directed to examine fhe grievance and consider and d^cide in accordance with the law by passuig appropriate orders, b^it the eollector has not passed any order in fhat regard. The CoUector has issu^d iastructions on 7.4.2011 to the ixecutive Ofl&cer, Janpad Panchayat, Darbha to decide the case of tijie petitioner. Leamed counsel for fhe ^ -r -{- (@ XI-HC—78 's^ -^ww^, &-d\w , fq<ni-Liy,< WHW (h*ira> V^IOO s^v 'ci°ra' (lcif^»<<llT) sn^i w W\* tT«H 3FfT^?T SOHlef) ?^IIWHfel •ffl^'I -?- ct»l<l[d<ftl'RFRff ^ fe[3t <f^l^l< ^aiRnsii^r Praveen petitioner could not estabUsh 1(hat tlie Executive Engiaeer or Chief Executi.ve Oflicer has no role t(? play. The CoUector has done what could be done by huu. Iffhe dij-ection issued by fhe Collector is not being coinpUed with and the pe|titioner's dues have not been paid titt date, fhe petitioner's remedyj is to seek direction agaiast ffae Executive Engineer and C tpief Executi.ve Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Dharbha, by appro^ching appropriate forum as may be available to hun under the l^w. The Collector/respondent in its order has stated that the claim of the petitioner has to be decided to avoid any situation of cont^inpt. This clearly shows that fhe respondeut does not have intetition to Qout or disobey the order of fhe Court Therefore, I aia not i|nclined to proceed m this matter. Wifh fhe aforesaid obseni|ations, the petition is disiuissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^