IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Conteitipt CaseT^o. ^. /2010 PfiTITIONER 3.s4^,,e )^^l;;L... ""' ^m^e^..^aL{f y •^^Lf.4Cl. ^,^—-^^ -^ "% RESPONDENT/ CONTEMNOR Mirza Asfar Walim Beg, S/o Late Shri Mirza Walim Beg, aged about 37 years, employed as Assistant Grade-III, in the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Division Raipur R/o Qtr. N0. H/89 Irrigation colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Mr. C.K. Khetan, Secretary, Water R^sources Department, Secretariat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Mr. R.N. Chief Mahanadi Basin, Mishra, Engineer, Godawari Water Resources Department, Civil Lines, Ditt • Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION^IS of the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10, 12, 14 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971 s" ^4im* ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Contempt Case (C) N0.89/2010 Petitioner Respondents Contemnors Mirza Asfar Walim Beg Versus Mr. C. K. Khetan and another (Contempt Petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 10,12 and 14 ofthe Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971) Present: - Shri Sameer Behar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shirijit C.S. Nair, counsel for respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 07-03-2011) This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedier.ce of order dated 01-10-2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.5541 of 2008, by which, the Court had directed the competent authority of the respondents therein to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation was submitted to the Secretary of the Department on 17-10-2008 with a copy endorsed to the Chief Engineer and Engineer in Chief. He submits that the respondents were therefore duty bound to decide the matter within a period of three months, but the decision was not taken within the stipulated period, therefore, the contempt petition was filed. He further submits that later on, after filing of the contempt petition, the petitioner came to know that the respondents have taken a decision vide letter dated 24-06-2009. He however submits that the /€!^ ^f'.„-•-°% 1 ^liS^ ^ ^INf. -2 said decision has been taken, in violation ofthe Court order, beyond tt- within which, the representation was directed to be decided. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the averments made in the reply by submitting that much before filing of the contempt petition, the case of the petitioner was decided in compliance of the order passed by this Court vide letter dated 24-06-2009 (Annexure R-3). It is further submitted that after receipt of the representation of the petitioner, the State had directed the concerned officers to decide the issue of payment of increment in accordance with the directives of General Administration Department. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents pray for an unconditional apology for the delay, which has been caused in deciding the representation of the petitioner. He however submits that the delay was not intentional and sometime was consumed in departmental correspondences, and thereafter, the matterwas considered and finally decided. 4. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the averments made in the pleadings and the documents ptaced on record, 1 find that after the order was passed by the Court, the State had directed the competent authority to take decision in the case of the petitioner as per the order of the Court and finally the matter was decided on 24-06-2009, therefore, 1 am not inclined to proceed further in the matter. Rule is therefore discharged. 5. The petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane