^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE fQ No. g 7/2011 PETITIQNER ^%-^' '^•^^' Aditya Kumari, W/o Tejbai Bramhin, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Kochka, Tahsil Manendragarh, District- Koriya (C.G.). RESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS VERSUS 1. Mr. M. S. Paikra, aged 55 years, Commissioner (Revenue) Surguja Division, Ambikapur (C.G.). 2. Mr. S. R. Brahmane, aged about 50 years, Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Surguja Division, Ambikapur (C.G.). \\!^ jl CONTEMPT PETITION U/A 215 OF CONSTITUTION R/W ^yy SECTION 10 & 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT g XI-HC-22 -3~5Er ^ll^lld^, ^•d1y41<i'. fa<vll^1< 'cra^? 'WR^TT^W^ 'fN^y' -i^.^/n '(g)"^( ' ^oo STl^T^T h^ ^^ 5^4-llc^ ^ti^a ^TT^i'^rrwHfi?[ SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Slhrivastava. J 14-03-2011 Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for Heard. This petition has been filed by of order dated 3/7/09 passed in W.P.(2{ Learned counsel for the petitio^ directed that the appeal be decided date of roceipt of copy of the order. H^ sought to be submitted in the office month of August but the same was 10/09/10, an application was made se^ in the office. He submits that as the| office, in the month of August, 2010, within six months thereof, which has nof The averments made in the cryptic and vague. Though it is submitt^d the office of respondent in the month| It has not been stated specific^liy and who was the person, who refused in the contempt petitionthat thereafter, month of March, 2010 which itself sho|k regard to the date on which he piac^ respondent. The representation dated in the office of the respondent on 10/( months would begin from that date. tt1e petitioner. <=hl^id41r1 'WRTf ^ 'f^cst iRsi^K ^3ti^R3TT^T t:he petitioner aliegtng non-compJiance 27) No.3126/09. |ier submits that on 3/7/09, this Court v^ithin a period of six months from the states that the copy of the order was |)f respondent / Commissioner in the tot accepted and thereafter again on ?king compliance, which was received first application was tendered in the tttierefore the matter was to be decided been done. ccjntempt petition, if i may say so, are that annexure C/2 was submitted in |of August, 2010, but no receipt was as to on which date he submitted receive the same. It is then averred iagain an application was made in the |iws that the petitioner is not sure with ^d the order of this Court before the ()9/09/10 (Annexure C/3) was received [|)9/10 and therefore, the period of six f^^ tp^ ^^. ':^ 't^^l' 1 lXI-HC-22 ~S^r ^t<4td<LI, ^Tll^^ico, M^l<iy siri^ 'cra^ ^J' Co^^)^' W') WH^iT^b^lch •i^sr' W^T'^1 ^rll5t) ^Ti^T ^^\^ ^rft^ Deepli /L r^ ^TT^T'^IT^R'^Tf^T chi<4(<n<fl"i Tnwrf ^ 'fe1^)' <p3i^i< ^ 3Tf^TR ^TT^T This contempt petition was filecl on 4/2/11 i.e. much before expiry of the date to be reckoned from 10/09/101. Therefore, 1 am not inclined to issue notice to the respondent. However, tl|ie petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate petition, in case, any deci^ion in the appeai is not taken by the respondent within a period of six montli|s from 10/09/10. With the aforesaid observatjonsj the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^ tf7<T-t