INTHE^ION'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR T^_\I CONTEMPT CASE (C) No.^l^./ 2011 PETITIONER.--" 'T'-^-" ^^c. ^?^"^naw s®?ish Rr o x^ ./'<" ^ ^' ..<•• ^yy^ ..'•' o ^ /• o® Smt. Ram Bai Rathore, D/o. Late Lalsai Rathore, Aged about 32 years, R/o. Gram Badoura Tahsil - Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Thakur Ram. Singh, Collector, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. B.K. Rajput, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS ^ 1 XI-HC—7S 311^1 ^lfi;-ti<* .WT 3!''"^] *t!l+ -+ ru '3^ "qi-4i<-iA|, ®Til-y'i6,R«>iiyy ^^Gy^;.&..^..©.!w:'1?.^.^. 'tVfms'^V^ ^^^^^^^^^^ J Sli^I •q3RT (-cpig^q) ^giw oft^ 3n^i SB^:J1on'bleShrLManindraIVIohar] 14-09-2011 Shri N. K. Chatterji, counsel f(j 4it<i!y4'i iwcit^ftiA <h*<i<. . ^>sSns^\ Shrivastava, J. r the petitioner/s. Heard. Learned counsel for the jietitioner/s submits that eariier the petitioner/s had filed writ petition Before this Court aggrieved by notice dated 06-04-2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Assistant Commissioner. In the aforesaid wrif petition, stateijnent was made by the learned State counsel that the notice dated 06-04(2011 is only a tentative opinion of the authority and the fact that thepetiticjner/s have been given a notice shows that no final decision in the matter hfes been taken and the same would be only after the receipt of reply. Consiijlering the aforesaid statement, the wrif petition was finally disposed off ojiserving that the show cause notice shows tentative opinion and not respondents shall duly consider thej appropriate enquiry before coming t(( fe final decision and further that the of the petitioner/s. It is submitted th^t though reply has been submitted by the petitioner/s on 13-07-2011, till cjate, no decision has been taken. It is also submitted that in the spirit of Vf} on the part of the respondents to ta| but decision has not been taken, wh( The order passed by this petition was disposed off observing| this Court against the notice da|e submission made by learned Stat^ reply filed by the petitioner/s and hold any conclusion adverse to the interest @ order of the Court, it was incumbent le decision in the matter expeditiously, ;h amounts to willful disobedience. Cdurt on 04-07-2011 shows that the writ 1 that the petitioner/s have approached ted 06-04-2011 and in view of the counsel. It is not the case of the •iA: XJ-HC—78 aii^y 3w R-fi* '^T^TI^^i^ TOiiwsfeisn^i ^_ Tumane 'S^ '^W\v\^,, •s-Awie, Kf^wy. tlTHCtT Sb*11<h W^ 200 sn^r •q^q? (lyt^iiir) petitioner/s that without considerin^ the reply, certain orders have now been passed. The matter has not Commissioner, and it is found that | the respondent-Collector with a cop!| ehi<{I^rah ^mv^ ^f Ts*^1 'lfSn^R iT3i)OT31lt?I been decided by the respondents till date. Moreover;-the notice dated 0^-04-201 1 was issued by the Assistant :he petitioner/s have submitted reply to ' to the Assistant Commissioner. In that view of the matter, l;am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents. Accordingly, the petition is di^missed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge