^\ L^ F. ^' ^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH ) N0^ / 2010 ^<^?^\,4 CONTEMPT PETffR PETITIONER: •^o^^' ':-...^\^^ ^ ^ q^^ .^" RESPONDENT Ram Kumar Sahu, S/o Keshav Ram Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village-Godhana, Tah. & Distt. Champa-Janjgir (C.G.) VERSUS Dr. Kamal Preet Singh, Collector, Surguja, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1971. The above named petitioner respectfully begs to submit as under : HC-22 3n^T^T ^i<=h ^s^r sti^i^ •Hf^a -^ET -L||<L||^<q, ^Ti1y^|(o, ^crtKHy HI^CII 5b^i<^ 3^?r "q^F ^cs.Sh^'^i 200 •^ 200 •f^ST' ^STT^T'^[:crYW^ft?T cbl^f<n<-i1rl 'HFMf "^ f^st iF^^K ^S^TTOT^T SB: Hon'ble Shri Mamn^QMotm^SjQriva^tava^ 19-01-2011 Shri A. N Pandey, counsel for|the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jha along with Shn J. P. Shukla, counsel for respondent. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitijoner submitted that though this Court vide order dated 06-11-2009 pass^d in W.P.(S) No. 5767 of 2009 had directed that pending appeal shall be|decided within a period of two months from the date of reoeipt of copy of tl|iis order, the respondent authority did not decide the matter within the time| stiputated even though the same was duly communicated on 17-11-2009. Ifle submitsthat the respondent passed P4-2010 and thereby flouted the order final order in the appeal only on 24-| oftheCourt. Learned counsel for respond^ of the concerned Clerk. As soon as nt referring to the averments made in the return, submitted that the order p^ssed by this Court was not brought to the notice ofthe appellate authority <pue to the inadvertence of the mistake he same was brought to the notice of respondent, the respondent decided) the matter at the earliest by passing final order in the appeal cn 24-04-$010. It is also submitted that for the lapses on the part of the concerne|d Clerk, disciplinary action has been initiated against him. Learned co|unsel submits that the respondent authority has highest regard in orde^ and proceedings and there was no this Court and unconditional apotogy il-red. intention to clout the order passed b^ was sought for delay which has occu| as also considering the cause shown Considering the submission rrjade by learned counset for the parties for delay in deciding the appeal, in my ^^ [TTt^^fe^ ^ '% ^..,,:c^. ll-HC-22 I ^M^ I- 1. -..J ^,/ 31T^?T'^T r<vli5h ^3^T $t)*4icti ^f^a Tumane '^3^ ^^T ^l<41d<L<, ^nl^^Ko, f^cni^y HW^\ ^h^ich 31li^T tT5^ CcT^,c^Fdh-6^10 rg?--r----7"--^i"-%FR /200 ^^ •M '^^T' '^n^r'^nw^'n -2-- ^i^tcn^li ^H<riT ^ 'feT^t iFsi^K ^3Tp<R^^TI^T opinion, it is not a case of willful disobedience of the order of the Court. Therefore. rule is discharged. Accordingly, the petition is fir^ally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge l-Tft^ ^fe7l