^A- -\ r.r; IN THE HI^H COURT O^ JUDIC^TURE AT BILASPUR ^o /-- CONTEMPT CASE (C) N0. ^S^ of 2009 5?lj1f|©:| APPLIC4NT: ^'l-v^ ^•^'yi^' ^T' \^' ^' 7, (yovind Prasad Sao, son of Shri Daliu Sao, aaed 47 years, Occupation-ServEce, posted as Time-keeper, R.E.S. Sub- Division Rajpur Division, Ambikapur, resident of Villaae Sarkhon-Naila, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Vs RESPONDENTS ^m^ »T^y ^ 'Shri b.S. Misra, Principal Secretary, Panchayat & Rurat DeveloDment DeDartment, AAantralava. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raiour (C6} 2. Shri H.P. Kindo, Additional Secretar -cum- bevelopment Commissioner, Panchayat <& Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, D,K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C(?) 3. Shri R.P. Mandal, the then Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development DeDartment, Mantralava, D.K.S. Bhawan. RaiDur (C6} -CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12_0_F THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1973. XI-HC—78 3:1T^T ^FT l^fNF H^TT 3?T^T 9n^J<^ *<IHCTr«»*1(cb ~3"5BT ^iqicrl^, ^Tll^KD, [®l<r11<H^< . ^c^- c^^fb^^^/&^ ^i 200 ^n^r ^5F (liG<f^<s<^) SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohanl 21-09-2011 Shri Indrasen Sahu, counseLfd Shri Pawan Kesharwani, counl Heard. <^l^f<nAi)l 'RTTT^ff ^f fe^ iPai-^K '5|73tRW3T^T Shrivastava. J. |)r the applicant. ^el for respondents. At the very outset, learned icounsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the amount, which was due and payable to the petitioner in compliance of order dated 04-03-200 (S) No.2470 of 2007, has been paid. Referring to the averments m respondent No.1 submitted that after in Writ Petition(S)No.2470 of 2007, Appeal No.248 of 2009 were preferre came up for hearing, order was respondents, in compliance of the deposited an amount ofRs. 1,76,25 other writ petitioners vide Demand C amount was deposited in the Regi showing the intention to comply with application was moved for withdrawc petitioner and other writ petitionen required to be carried out in the title State of Madhya Pradesh to State of < withdrawal, which resulted in delay 1 for respondent No.1 submitted that th 8 passed by thisCourt in Writ Petition |ade in the reply, learned counsel for |the order was passed on 04-03-2008 ^ Writ Appeal No.247 of 2009 & Writ |d by the State. When the Writ Appeal passed on 28-09-2010 and the order passed in the writ petition, IQOO/-, payable to the petitioner and |raft dated 21-04-2010. The aforesaid |stry and an undertaking was given Ithe order. It is submitted that the an II of the amount for being paid to the ^, but because of some correction [o change the name of the party from phhattisgarh, there was some delay in h making payment Learned Counsel ^ respondent had no intention to flout XI.HC—78 ^ W^T^FT^TNF ^m3^r'9FFfN:r ^•NN Tumane '75£[^l-Mld^, ^Tii'H'Ko, r«i<ni^lj>< HWW WHIch -^ 200 3TI^T TT^^' ( y<(^<^) '^RTOT ^Tf^T^n^T — y -— the order of the Court and neither d always acted in comptiance of th^ payments were released. Taking into consideration the ^ the respondent, the averments con cftl*l?^l<fll TTTR1?Tf "^f 'fe^Et <f^^l< it:T3tRwa^t?r isobeyed the order of the Court, but order of the Court and finally the ubmission, which have been made by :ained in the reply/affidavit and also taking into consideration that the payments have now been released, 1 am not inclined to proceed further in the rjnatter. Rule is therefore discharged. Accordingly, the petition is fina ly disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge