^^^- 8 IN THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Ay.'l ') PETITIONER .- Contempt CaseNo.—^—i-- of 2010. f- Ghasnin Bai, aged about 40 year, W/o Late Shri Dujram, Resident ^f ^J."' ' of Village- Datoud, Tahsil-Jajipur \.o- .%. ^s^ ^ ,^ District -Janjgir Champa. (C.G.). L^'"' '^ VER S U S RESPONDENT: Chandrahas Chandrakar, HSuB~-l5Tvisionaroificer, PublTcworks Department - District -Janjgir Champa. (C.G.). i^-. ,(\j\ QUNrEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1973. .'yV!^ ^•\fSSS-i V js M"S '^. ~?si -^w\v\^, ^Tfra^, isjdiy^ .^:a^..^.^(^.1^6..:'L^^1^ 3T!^[tpR7C SiAw qil Wi^ vn an^i stiiiqi 'S^tIW ^lfTO 311^1 SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Sh bein 20$6 petitic|ner 13-07-2011 Smt. Ranjana Jaiswal, counsel foi Shri Akhilesh Kumar, counsel for Heard. This contempt petition has disobedience of order dated 02-02-20( Court in Writ Petition No.490/2006 (Gfta. and another). In the aforesaid writ pef Court on 02-02-2006 directing the petitic raising grievances before the competenl with a copy of the petition and this orde was also a'irected that on such represi authority of the respondent shall decic accordance with law, as early as possibl' months from the date of receipt of the petitioner may also be 'heard. Learned after the order passed by this representation on 22-02-2006 before Department, Mantralaya, as also before Champa. Learned counsel further subm dated 13-02-2008 directed the Executive the recommendationofthe M.L.A. On the other hand, learned no proceedings for contempt against the non-applicant was not impleaded as a representation has been made before thi submitted that after the respondent has +l'<fd'lil-f iWRli tf fs'S 'vS^KZK ^aifgiisn^i Nvastava. J. the petitioner. espondent. filed by the petitioner alleging (Annexure C-1) passed by this ^nin Bai vs. State of Chhattlsgarh |ition, an order was passed by this to make detailed representation authority of the respondents along jr, within three weeks from today. It ^ntation being filed, the competent |e the same on its own merits, in ^, preferably within a period of three Irepresentation, and if required, the for the petitioner submits that t, the petitioner had submitted the Secretary, Water Resources ItheSub Divisional Officer, P.W.D., (ts that the Collector vide its memo Engineer to look into the matter on coun|sel for the respondent submits that respondent could be initiated, as the party in the writ petition nor any i^ Superintendent Engineer. It is also Ijoined the office of Superintendent citiunsel Coilirt •! asi"ii'.<l, ("nT^ira—FS/l 40—2 /3.0' I -1.50,000- T^ •<1l^lc1AI, t?Tft?PTS, feTRTg? sn^I TTSRT (^qf3?SlE() SB^l ^il R-fi'fc ^s 3n<S?i st>*iitt» TCnwatetsn^i — !-- qirfrR^ t]TRr?if •i[ fe<3l •(fSR^R ^sffim 311^1 his Engineer on 09-07-2010, the petitioner any representation. Learned counsel fur^her Court to make representation before petitioner made representation before th^ neither approached nor submitted submits that the direction of the the competent authority and the Government through its Secretary. 2006 Order dated 02-02-2006 was competent authority of the respondent petitioner on its own merits. On petitionei| representation to the Secretary, Water Divisional Officer. Memo dated 10-03-: Sub Divisional Officer forwarded thel Engineer. The petitioner has placed on been made by the petitioner to the res[ has however not refuted that the petiti|)r before 30-06-2011. In the entire petition,| petitioner as to who would be the representation of the petitioner but the according to the petitioner, the compete|it or the Sub Divisional Officer who were were preferred. Therefore, on the basisj made, no case for initiating contempt is misconceived and is therefore dismiss< passed by this Court directing fo decide the representation of the ('s own showing, the petitioner made Ipesources Department and the Sub (Annexure C-3) shows that the representation to the Executive i^cord the representation, which has po^ident on 30-06-2011. The petitioner never approached respondent |there is no specific averment by the ((ompetent authority to decide the tonduct of the petitioner shows that authority was the Chief Secretary nfiade parties to whom representation of the pleadings which have been pr|3ceedings is made out. The petition sfed. petiti|)ner It is made clear that this order h^wever shall not come in the way of the competent respondent authority to appointment of the petitioner. Idecide the. claim of compassionate Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge "ii^'r^ ^^--? BS"E!^?, TTSfft^rra—FS/140—2/20; i' -1,50,000.