2< ^ ./-• IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. ? "3^ OF 2010. APPLICANT 'PETITIONER v€.-' u ~^^y ......y?^' ^:y^w "'^'"..•-^' s's A^- 'Smt. J. Pradhan, W/o. Shri Ram Chandra Pradhan, aged about 49 years, U. D. T. Govt. Giris Higher Secondary School Jashpur, District Jashpur (C. G.) VER S U S RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR Dr. Lalit Shukla, aged about 50 years, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Jashpur, District Jashur (C.G.) CONTEMPT CASB (C) UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OFJNDIA READWITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT STI^T^ h-u* an^r ^pi^ -(-lEi^ ^£["i|l*llCl'll, Ofl1<1*IS, (aiCll'Hy ^.r^±'.c.te..c^,^7^» WKW VhWSn sn^i ^raiw ^nffg <oi<<i<i41i iiicil ^ 'fe'A <Rflt«;i< ^T3lf:gH3TI^I SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 18.02.a011 Shri Somkant Verma, coituisel for fhe petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, ctiunsel for fhe respondent aforesa6d co'ttiisel .o-6er This petition has been fi|e order dated 10th March, 20lp No.7440/09. By the submission of leamed representation of fhe petitio^ij considered and decided, in perspective, within a period of] copy of fhis order. In view of was fmaUy disposed of, re): adjudication. Leamed counsel for avennents made ia the repty order was passed by fhis C< constituted and fhe case ofth^ the petitioner was found fit 23.7.2010 (Annexure R-5), th^ fherefore, respondent is not or breech of undertaku^ given| ;d aUegic^ witlfiil disobedience of the passed by fhis Court in W,P. (S) order, fhis Court recorded the for fhe State fhat if fhe is pending, fhe same shall be abcordance wifh law and on its own 2 mionfhs froia the date of receipt of |the aforesaM statement, fhe petition :ordir^ that nothing survives for |the respondent, refenrir^ to the 4nd afBdavit, subniitted fhat after ttie ;<(>urt, the Promotion Committee was petitioner was considered and finaUy |For promotion and vide order dated petitioner has been promoted and, g^iUly of any dlsobedience of fhe order Ibefore tiris Court. Considenng fhe avermei^te made ia the reply and also takmg iato consideration fhe explanation in the reply, supported by fhe i [^te •-n''i" nmn SB«& "'^ /y^ "%. 1 ^^^. XI-HC-22 3nt?lqii 'f^;ii?i'3til?i ?fr^ficti ^^ Pranreen •s^f r, S}T{I^'I(O, 'faciwy WfR'fr viwss 200 sn^i •g^iwaftff -2 affidavit and that finally petitioner's representation and not mcluied to proceeded furtfa^ tpie respondent has accepted ttie graated him proiaotion also, I ain ifer in the matter. The rule is therefore disc}iarged. The petiti.cn is accordmg]^ finaUy dlsposed of. SRT^[d4lr1 *ll^tf "^ fe^ <f^^l< i? a^ati aii^i Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge