|||?ii|l?%|jj^|ij|ill||i^BBS81 •i ^ ^-.1 ^:y HjGH COURT OF THE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPTCASE (C } No.102/2010 PETITIONER Hulas Ram Lodhi, S/o Late Firtu Ram Lodhi, Age about 41 years, Ex Srapanch, Gram Panchayat Medesara, Thasil Dhamda, District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT R.S. Viswakarma, Age about 58 years, S/o Not known, Secretary, Mining Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OFCOURT^CT " Appearance: Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (21.10.2010) VYc^ :--';i. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner Hulas RamcLpdhj?^isliled]this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondent for willful default in compliance of the order dated 25.09.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5596/2009. This Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.5596/2009 passed the following order on 25.09.2009(; :!t •? "1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the complaint ofthe petitioner dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) filed against the illegal grant of mining license to respondents No.4 to 6 herein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner ,sybmits that the petitioner rriayk be ' 'permitfed' 'to make fresh complaint/application before the respondent No.1, who, — E CONTEMPT CASE (C l No.102/2010 in turn, be directed to decide the same in accordance with law within the specified period. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that he has no objection if the petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make fresh application/complaint before the respondent No.1 within ten days from today and in turn, respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the applicatiQn/CQmplaintiniaficQrcjanc^with'law. 5 Certified copy as per rules." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the representation filed by the petitioner as per order dated 25.09.2009 was not being disposed of, the petitioner had to file this contempt petition. 1 A reply to the contempt petition has been filed. It has been contended in para 6 of the reply that the representation ofthe petitioner has already been disposed of by the concerned authority vide orderdated 2nd of July2010. A copy of the order has also been filed asAnnexuFe-R-4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that some more time than the time granted by this Court has been consumed for disposingofthe representation, but the delay was not intentional. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the circumstance that the representation filed by the petitioner has already been disposed of by the concerned authority, 1 do not find any good ground to proceed further in the matter of contempt against the respondent. The contempt petition, therefore, is dismissed. ^ The rule issued starids discharged. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge '^•^iw'r;