HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR PETITIONER Contempt Case No. 31 of 2007 Rishi Kumar Devdas, Son of late Daya Ram Sonwanj, aged about 28 years, resident of near Santoshi Temple, Gariyaband, Tehsil- Gariyaband, District- Raipur(C.G.) Vs. RESPONDENTS Contemnors 1. Mr. Alok Shukla, The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Mr. Subodh Singh, The Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPTPETITION UNDERSECJ'ION 12 OF THECONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Apoearance: Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyerfor respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (04.12.2009) SUNIL KUIUAR SINHA, J, Heard. Petitioner, Rishi Kumar Devdas, has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the responderits for the alleged default committed by them in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1285/2003. This Court while disposing of the W.P. No. 1285/2003 on 16.12.2005 passed the following oi'ders:- "Having considered and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, ends ofjustice will be served if a direction is given to the petitioner to make a detailed representation raising his grievances before the competent authority of the respondents along with a copy of the petition and this order within one month from today and on such representation being filed, the competent authority of the respondents shall decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law as early as possible positively within three months from the date of receipt of the representation specifying the 1"1 'iS S. ~_. I? ^teaasS Contempt Case No. 31 of 2007 ground on which the order is passed. It is made clear that if any grievance remains, the petitioner may avail the remedy available underthe law." Mr. Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that thereafter the petitioner filed a representation dated 26.12.2005 and the same was not decided in time, therefore, he had to file this contempt petition. The reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2. In the said reply, it has been stated on affidavit that after receiving the representation of the petitioner, the matter was examined by the competent authority and vide letter dated 19.4.2006, the Deputy Commissioner, Land Records, decided the representation of the petitioner and the copy was sent to the Higher Authority. A copy was also forwarded to the petitioner. Thereafter vide letter dated 26.10.2006, the petitioner was informed about the decision taken on his representation. Subsequently respondent No.2 also vide letter dated 24.2.2007 informed the petitioner about the decision taken in his case. The copies ofthe letters dated 19.4.2006, 26.10.2006 & 24.2.2007 have been filed as Annexure- R-2/1. In view of the aforesaid submission made by respondent No.2 on affidavit, though it appears that there is some delay in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1285/2003 but the delay is not inordinate and it also does not appear to be intentional so as to make it a willful default on the part of the respondents further making them liable for punishment under contempt. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find it appropriate to proceed further in the matter. The Contempt Case has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd7- SunUKumarSinha Judge vatti