FR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contemot PeUtlou No. 157 of 2Q07 ,-i?. •y'"^ RESPONDENT/ CONTEMNOR PETITIONBR Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, through the Secretaiy, Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh). Versus Ashaaaad Wadhwani, son of Late Harpal Das Wadhwani, agedabout 64 years, Sole Proprietor of Firm ShaakerDaI Mffi, Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). CONTBMPT PETITION UNbERARTICLE 215 OF THBCONSTITUTIONOF INDIA RBAD WITH SECTION12 OF THECONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT Appearance ; Shri H.B.Agrawal, Sr. Advocatewifh Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner. p ORDER (25.11.2009) SUNILKUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. The petitioner Krishi Upaj Maadi Samiti has ffled this petitioii for iaitiation. ofcontenipt proceediags ^aiast the respondent allegtEtg wiUful default of the oider dated 25.8.2005 passed in W.P.No.3847/ 1989. W.P.No.3847/1989 was filed by ShanJkar Dal nulls through its proprietor i.e., respondent/contemiior in the present petition. Thesaid -E^' <s. ^ writ petition was partly aUowedwith the followuig directioflS: * (1) respondents are directed to revise the deinarid notice considering the Maadi fee payable froin t- 20.8.1979 on wards; (2) respondents should adjust the amount paid by fhe petitioner apart, froni the amount shown in Armexure R-l; (3) respondents should charge interest @ 10% agam.st the outstaiiduig fee arrived at after the deduction of the above acaount froin the date of its outstaadiag. ^T" Contemot Petition No.157 of 2007 Shri H.B. Agrawal, learaed Sexuor Advocate appeanug for the petitioner hereiu i.e., Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti submits that the said order ofthe Court was coinpUed by fhe Maadi aad therevised demand notice was issuedon 12.11.2005 but fhe respondent/Conteinnor has not couiplied the said notice and has ffled a reply. Therefore, the said action of fhe respondent aiuounts to violation of fhe order dated 25.8.2005 passed by this Court, Leamed counsel for the petitioner is unable to pouit out as to how fhe order dated 25.08.2005 by which fhe writ petition filed by the respondent/conteinnor was partly allowed, has been violated by the respondent, It does not appear that either by not respondiag to fhe revised deinaud notice or by fiUng a reply to fhe revised notice issued to the respondent/conteiitnor by the petitioner after passiag of the order by the High Court would in any nianner amouut to violation of the said order passed ia the writ petition. There is no substance in fhe contempt petition. The petition is Uable to be disinissed aad is hereby dismissed sumniarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \