BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR e^€^L^. CONTEMPTPETITION-NO. /7-/ /2010 PETITIQNER ^- ^- Krishna Tiwari, S/o Shri Rainsdnehi „ Tiwari, aged about 29 years, R/o Near ^\^ ^-^'lry^f>^ Hanuman Teinple, Rapta Chowk, .^•":"^"^^'^y Chantidih, Bilaspur, (C.G.). l-^-\'o""' >^M 1^^' 4^^- VERSUS RESPONDENT/ CONTEMNOR Shii Bhuvnesh Yadav Chief Executive Officer, ZUa Panchayat, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ APPLICATION FOR INITIATION OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE'215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T'si% /^•!^'"" B & .-. 1. 1 %:^:':3T7!ss |:I-HC-22' \1^ ••-——^•j ^ 3^T^T R'li.ch 3TI^T $t)<-ii<=n ^f^a -3^T ^|<L||^<L|^ 'g^ftOTR, f^i^l^y WRC^T^W^ 3TT^T ^S^K ^....(2-A.,....^A.^^^/^ 'f^^T' 3?T^T ^RfI^R: Trf^T <^l^(<n<flrl 'HTR^ff ^ 'fe^t <psi^l< ^sri^msTT^T SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohc 07-01-2011 Shri Chandresh Shrivastavaj + Shrivastava.J. counsel for the petttioner. Shri Prateek Sharma, couns^t for the respondent. Heard. Learned counsel for the jl>etitioner submitted that this Court had passed an order on 04/08/201p djrecting respondents to ctecide the repFesentation within 15 days from |the date of receipt of copy of the order but as reflected from the retum, the s^me has been decided after delay of one month. The other submission of l^arned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the observations made by itself amounts to violation of order 4f this Court. In order dated 4/08/2010, ^ the claim of the petitloner. Tt submission of learned counsel respondent is violation of the Cou| that the respondent had decided th| R/2) after expiry of 1 % months froM this Court, rejection of the representation 15 da^ as directed by thls Court. of the respondent authortty in d^ lis Court had not recorded any finding on fore, 1 am not inclined to ac^pt the the petitioner that the decision of the 's order. From the return, it is revealed & representation on 14/09/2010 (Annexure the date of receipt of copy of the order. The representation of the p^titioner has been decided after exptry of Though, there has been delay on the part ciding the representation, in view of the submission of tearned counsel for t|ie responctent and avermente made in the reply supported by an afRdavit thajl the delay was inadvertent, unintentjonal and bonafide and that the res^ondent has tenderedl his unconditional apology, the rule is dischargect. [^ T.f^ ^••'€'^ /f' ^•'" '^ ''^. " '%.-,.—^:.. X%HC-22- ^, ^. "^^./ 3TT^?T^T 'f^ri^^n^T 9h^i<=t) Trf^T ^ Deepti ^^r ^i<4id<t), ^Til^^Ko, f®i<nj<H^< 3T^?T '<75ra? MINCII ^w^ Gy^-^>^W^^^-/{^ 200 f^ST' 3^r^<?T^R^rf^r -o?- The petitioner however is may be availabie to him underthe) With the aforesaid observa^ions obl1LI?<y1<fl<1 'HP^ ^ f^1c3t <p3l^l< '^N^R^n^T i: iiberiy to take recourse to such remecily, as (aw. >, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge j'^^fe^