@ Paras Ram Thakur, s/o Shri Bisrauha Ram Thakur, Aged about 38 years, Waterman of Govt. Pre Metric Aadiwasi Boys Hostel, Dallirajhara, Distt. Durg (C.G.), R/o Village Bodki, P.O — Belmand, Tahshil Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G). Vs. l. Shri M.K. Raut, Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste and other Backward Class Welfre Department, Raipur (CG). 2. Shri Subrat Sahu, Collector, Durg, Distt‘ Durg (CG). THE W CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE Aggearance: Mr. Jeet Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, counsel for the respondents. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, (1.01.2010) Heard. Petitioner Paras Ram Thakur has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.440/2005 on 9th of May, 2009. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the said Writ petition, passed the following orders: “In my opinion the responsible respondents ought to have considered the grievance of the petitioner made in his representation. Since that has not been done, a direction requires to be issued to the respondents. Accordingly, the following: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE No. 93 of 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS a CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT ORAL ORDER 3 Contempt Petition. No.93/200Q (i) The writ petition is disposed of. (ii) A direction is issued t0 the competent authority before whom the representation said to have been filed by the petitioner is pending, to consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.” The petitioner filed this contempt petition alleging that the representation filed by him has not been disposed of, therefore, it would amount to willful disobedience on the part of the respondents, for that they may be punished. Mr. Arun Sao, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the representation filed by the petitioner has already been disposed of by order dated 07.03.2008. He further furnishes the copy of the order passed on the representation of the petitioner. The copy of the order dated 07.09.2008 be made part of the record of the contempt petition. 3‘ Since the representation filed by the petitioner has already been disposed of by the respondents by order dated 07.03.2008, it does not appear that the respondents have committed willful disobedience or in any manner they have flouted the order passed by this Court)though there appears to be some delay in disposal of the representation. For the foregoing reasons, the proceedings in the contempt petition are dropped, at this stage. Ran Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge