BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.t CONTEMPT CASE (C) N0. ^33 / 2011 APPLICANTS ^\^ ,..•' A..^ >^<^1 ^^ smwi. Rohit Lal Sahu, S/o Shri Khunnuram Sahu aged About 38 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Rampur (k)- Block Kasdol District Raipur C.G. Chand Ram, Sahu, aged 43 ^7c? ^h^ fi-'y-H A^»7^^^—-" years, U.D.T., Govt. Middle School, Hatud, Block Kasdol, Distt. Raipur C.G. /^""^3 9 (te. RESPONDENT Mahesh Chandra Yadav, aged 47 years, S/o Kartik Ram Yadav, U.D.T., Govt. Middle School, Virnaraynpur, Block Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (C.G) Ganesh Ram Sahu, aged 51 years, S/o Shri Dhaniram Sahu, U.D.T., Block Kasdol, District Raipur C.G. VERSUS Hemant Upadhaya District Education Officer Balodabazar (C.G) ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATBD 9/5/11 PASSED IN W.P. (S). 2480/11 ^v XI.HC—78 ^r?t?y ^f ^NF TF^T 3?ff8RT<$CTN^ .^ T ^ N(*1CTI ^o^ '^TPTT^R, ^ttlWl^ ^^lT^^< ^.<^L:.<^Bg&^.?AL -200 \ ^w^ (^f^^) ¥^IWT^rtt^^T^ff SB : Hon'ble SHri Manindra MohanS 21-09-2011 Shri Somkant Verma, counsel fd petitioners was finally disposed off vic| ^ffii^f^N 1TOPRf ^f f^^t <fSf^[< ^'^fiffi^fii?r tLriyastava, J. |r the petitioners. Heard. Learned counset for the petition^rs submits that the writ petition filed by the e order dated 09-05-2011, in view of the statement made by the learned Statejcounsel that in the event, the petitioners make a representation, the same will t?e considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the deci; Bharadawaj v. Municipal Corporatiofy, Durg & another, 2006(11) MPJR-CG'96 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The Si W.P.(S)No.4130 of 2005, within a pericjd offourweeks from the date of receipt of the representation. He submits that the the respondent on 20-06-2011, but till (late, the decision has not been taken. He submits that the undertaking given by t| is binding on the State authorities. It is made clear that even no i Court, the writ petition was disposed petition for adjudication, in view of t^ matter of the petitioners in accordance State counsel before the Court. With the aforesaid observation] ordered that if no decision is taken in th| the date of receipt of a copy of this o^ revive this petition. ?ions of this Court in Yeshwant Kumar ate Govt of Chhattisgarh and another, representation has been submitted before ie learned State counselbefore the Court pecific direction has been issued by this )ff observing that nothing survives in this e statement made by the learned State counsel. Therefore, the respondents ^re obliged under the law to decide the Iwith the undertaking given by the learned the petition is finally disposed off. It is p matter within a period of one month from ider, the petitioners would be at liberty to Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge