3Li. ia y-S3 IM• <•» -f»' I iw- wf •»: » <"f^ p ^l^ <^,» :,1> M;<» <s.:'a *t> •lw (*• 1 ^ :::s: /If^ »•»-'•' j^^^S^Ss^ -HC—78 3n$?I^ET R-fich ^ran^rwtTO' <•• TST •^wwi, 8ifl|y<!e, fsicfiy^ . _<l7U> .0-^. ^1t^,)fe%/%)oc5 ^IN^W^W^ ^^ /-^^^^^ SII^FT TI^T ('yfj'*'^) TOnm^ifTOsn^i °ni<<I<l«i1llltlt'fl' ^f 'ft^t Tfil^re ^•affimsn^r SB : Hon'bleShri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 06-09-2011 •Shri J. K. Shastry, counsel for W^ petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava.couns^l for respondent No.1. Shri ChandreshShrivastava, coLinsel for respondent No.2. Heard. The petitioner alleges willful disobedience of order dated06-08-2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition jNo.4649 of2005 (Annexure C-1). It has been averred in the contempt pe passed by this Court on 06-08-2 respondents, no orders have been p^ssed within the period stipulated in the order resulting in willful disobedien Learned counselfor the petit have failed to carry out the direction| committed contempt. Learned counsel for responder issued by trtis Court to^respondent Chhattisgarh through the Secretary,| respondent No.1 is the Registrar and any pointof time. ;e of the order. joner submits that the respondents i^ issued by this Court, and thereby Learned counsel for responi averments made on affidavit, submi passed by this Court on 06-08-2008, of the Secretary, Co-operative Dep^rtment, and therefore, he has been :jtion thateven though, the orderwas p08 and copies were served on it No.1 submits that the direction was lo.1 in the writ petition i.e. State of Co-operative Department, whereas ie never held the post of Secretary at lent No.2 referring to the specific s that on or after the date of order espondent No.2 did not hold the post wrongly impleaded as respondent/co disobedience of order, if any committ^d. rtemnor and he is not responsible for •ifr" XI-HC—78 T~ '3~sr "4l^lirl<-l, s?Ti1y<l<a, T^lTOp: OT^tqiI ft-f]+ '(Wl ai^CT siiiii Tumane sn^i TR^; ('rt1'^) ~-~~r- TOHW ^fro sn^i'i —z-' Taking into consideration th^ parties, considering that direction vj'as issued by this Court on 06-08-2008 to respondent No.1 in the writ pet| Department to consider and decidei No.1 was not the Secretary at any not hold the post of Secretary on petitioner would be at liberty to fil those who are responsible for disob WqfWift^ lIPTCfl 4 fel3t Tf3R?R ^T affiw ail^l submission of learned counsel for the tion i.e. to the Secretary, Co-operative the representation and that respondent pointof time and respondent No.2 did >r after the date of the order, 1 am not inclined to proceed further in the m^tter. Rule is therefore discharged. The l^ properly constituted petition against fedience of the order of the Court. With the aforesaid observatio[i, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ! Judge .1 ^: Y <1~