,e m THB BBGH COURT OF JWDICATURB AT Bn-ASTOR [^) CONTBMWCASBfCIWO. (3n OP 2011 tl ^-y^ p:^^"" ^^ ,ytS.a •<^'^x^ \v PETmONER Devendra Giri Goswami, S/o Hari Giri Goswami, , ^ed about 45 years, Occupation Pump Operator at Nagar Panchayat Sarangarh, R/o Rajapara, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.O.) VBR S U S Ku. Chandrakanta Yadav, D/o Shri Chhedilal Yadav, aged about 54 years, Occuation- Service Posted as Chief » Municipal Ofiicer, Nagar, Panchayat Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETrrON UNDER SECTION 12 OPJTHE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971. RESPONDENT 3TT^T^T r<rlicb STI^T s»)^i^ <if^a '2. ^ocT v^l^ll<rt^ ?R, ^ftOT^. ^cni^y S1T^?T XR-^ t'd^ C^fe^^ //?9<^<^C 'WR^TT -g^qf^—•••••—•-•••••—•••—••m7^p^ 2( "^^ST' ^TT^T ^<TT^R ^rftn SB : Hosi?ble Shri Mastindra Mohfeii Sfarivastava, J. 15.04.2011 Shri Awadh Tri.pathi, couus^ This petition has been lile^ disobedience of order dated 18| |1 tbr the petitioner. [I by fhe petitioner aUegitig willfiil |^" 2/2011 passed m W.P. (S) No. 6612/2010 (Annexiire C/ 1). Leanied counsel for tlie pet|itioner subinits that on the basis of joint staterae.nt aad submission icjade by couusel for fhe petitioner as well as respondents that Uie cas^ decision ia Uie case of Dhafi opitiion Chhattisgarh and Others a^ Others v. State @f Chhattlsg^ disposed off in teniis of the ordei) Uie respondent sought legal tliough ui Uie legal opuiioii, it ha{ entiued to be reuistated, tUl dat^ petitioner has been passed, whic|i order of fhe Court. Froin perusal of Annexure petitioner aad otlier person is cbl^id<lflT1 'RTR^ff ^ fe^ <Pn<^i< '^^Tf^mSTT^T of the petitioner is covered by the [iram. and Others v. State qf |d Virendra Das Manikpuri Ss \srh <& Others, the petition was passed in fhose cases. Therealter, from thieir counsel aad even ^ been opiaed fhat Uie petitioner is |, no order of reuistatement of the constitutes aa act of floutiiig fhe Cp-10, it appears fh.at Uie case ofme ^ending consideration before fhe [Tfr^ ife^ XI-HC:-22 ~S^ T^\<AW^, ^Tll+l4!^. fa^Kiy si +11^011 9b^icb S1T^?T 'CR"^; .c^..^.^^^/^ ^ "^ /loo •^l^T' 3?n^T^T f<rijch sni^r $b^ict) ^f^a ^ respondent aad certain opiaio4 have also been obtahied in ffclat compMan.ee offhe order oftih.e Couilt Takiiig iato consideration petitioner has been given cn 1st of] issue notice to the respondent at shows that the respondent has sought legal opniion tn. fhe ixiatter| Court. However, if respondent does[ of 1 nionm, fhe petitioner shall be Wifh the aforesaid observati<bn off. <=hl^(d^T1 'RTR^f "^ 'ft^t iFsi^K '^^rf^m^TT^T tlie opiiiion ia tiie case of the Marcli-2011., I am uot iaclined to [present, because priina -facie it ]|)roceeded to take steps aiid has in coinpliaiice of fhe order of the [not pass aay order within a period dntitled to revive Uie petition, i<|)n, me petitiou is tiaatly disposed Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge