IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE 10 N0. ^ ^ / 2010 Sjnst®BencB ^ PETITIONER PETiTONER p^^ Rai University, through the Associate Director, run and managed by the Indian Institute of Excellence Society, a society duly registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act 1973 having its registered office at First Floor, Mishra Bhawan, Tatyapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^^- '..^ f''^~ h ^ f.^ // 3. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICl Shri Sharif Mohhamad son of not known to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Arang-Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Shri Pr&viotv 5i'n3h Sio. vwfe -of- not known to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, Tehsildar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Shri D.C. Pandey, son of not known to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, Deputy Commissioner, Division Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh .E^5 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDTA.~READ'WITH SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF TH^CONTEMPT OF C_OURTS Acf.'T197irFOR INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST_THE RisPONDENT'A^ONTEMNOR FOR BREACH AND.DISOBEDIENQi_QI 6RDERDATED49.10.2010 PASSED IN W.P.(C) N0^331/2010 PASSED B^ THIS HON'BLE COURT ^.il-t6 ___t-r- . *i—i- ^c (^ 1 '^- ?1 ^^>-^ tl-HC-22 ^. ^^/ ^ ^st ^tt^ld^, ^•al^i^<o, foicni^y _^^...^^ ^ WHC^T ^HIc^ f^R^T' W^T^Tf ^-iJch ^^ 5h^icb ^rftcT ^TT^T'^cUajT'^Rrft'cT SB : Hon>ble Shri Manindra M^han Shrivastava, J 3.01.2011 Shri Amrito Das, counsel | Heard on admission. This petition, for initiatin^ filed against the respondents,| order dated 29th October, 20101 No.6331/10. subnliits Leamed counsel for fhe had passed an order fhat if fh^ injurious to fhe students, then, counsel for the petitioner for allowing main door to be us| Arang-Abhanpur vide its letteil TahsUdar, Raipur to take of the Court order. Leamed cd that till date, on representati| passed by fhe Sub Divisional coiinsel submits that even th<| provided under fhe order, t] Tahsildar, ought to have chl<4fol41rt 'RT^T^if ^ f^T^> <f^l'^j< ir ^rf^R'STT^T br the petitioner. contempt proceedings, has been alleging willful disobedience of passed by thls Court m W.P. (S) p^titioner submitted fhat this Court adjacent door is dangcTous aad |mam door shaU be used. Leamed that on representation made ,|3d, fhe Sub Divisional Officer (R), dated 22.11.2010, required fhe appr^priate steps towards compliance ^unsel for fhe petitioner submits t>n, no orders have eifher been |0fficer or by Tahsildar. Leamed ij)ugh there is no specillc period tie Sub Divisional Officer and consid^red the representation and taken 1 -:nr^ -§-f7(7-f XI-HC-22 1 ^TT^I^T w\^ ^1^ 9b^ich ^n^^? Praveen ^s( ^ii^tid^. ^nl^^Ko, ^^ii^ll< 3'iT^T tR^ n)1^ ^iWdl ^^j^<—**•—**•*•'*•—*•'**•"—*'**'^^ 200 '^^sr' 'sn^fT ^^T^R: ^rft?r '2-1 reasojiable appropriate steps witliin He further submits that res(pondent threaten them and threatenedj the premises are not vacated. Considering the totally| allegations which are being m^ this petition at this stage. It isj order has been passed by thjjs Tahsildar are required to tajke representation ofthe petitioneij The petitioner shall serve| Divisional Officer and Tahsild^r any order is passed, the petit^. his petition after three weeks this order on respondents No. With the aforesaid ob^ disposed off. chl1Lli<n<flrl TnTl^ff ^ f^TSt iP^I^K ^ 37f^R ^STT^T time, which is no betng done. No.3 had also come to them with certain consequences if of the drcumstances and the ide, I am not inclmed to entertain however, made clear fhat once an Court, Sub DMsional Officer & appropriate decisions on fhe within a reasonable time. a copy of this order before fhe Sub \ In case no decision is taken or oner would be at Uberty to revive S'om the date of service of copy of 852. - ervations, the petition is finally Sd/- ManindraMohaaShrivastava Judge 1"^A '^cT4