O) !NTHEHIGILCOURT_0_F,CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPl^ ^^•s^.?_ ^c-- CONTEMPT PETinON (CIVIUNO'/ /2011 Achchhe Lal Sonkar, Aged about 60 years, S/o- Churaman^ R/o- Bada Bazar, Chirimiri, Tehsil-Manendragarh.(Now-Kiiadgawan), District - Surguja, (Now-Korea), (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Ritu Seii, Collector, Korea, • \ District - Korea (C.G.) PETITIONER 31^r'L-^.^- ^^S£SS3^. p^^^^r^^ Oa^"---"("3""-t0^1 RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER__ART!CLE 215 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 TO 15 O.F.;TI!_E_CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT FOR INITIATING £^NTEMPI_PROCEED!NGS_FOR_WILLFULL VIOLATION WLOS®ERBTD"_26,07.2010 sf- Th.at, the Petitioner humbJy begs to submit as under:- .__A-—- ::. :C—78 a^-sRifsnw ^^ra^T^Rte *iW^i 9bHi^> ^ixf -^i^i^^ ^Tli-M'iKo, f®|<r1l-My —...(^^.lC-^ CC) ^7^ // f ^^......................................^-^......^^^^ ^^ TT?^ ('^rf^3!^) ^T^R ^TfN <?T^?T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manind 29.11.2011 Shri Pawan Shrivasta1 Shri J.P. Shukla, couijisel peUtijon This contempt allegtng willful disobedieni passed in W.P. No. 3738/ l' tflie Leamed counsel for dated 26th July, 2010, direction to tfae Collectd application offhe petitione^ merits, as early as possibl from the date of receipt petitioner. Certified copy representation was sij respondent/contemnor on| the respondent initiated pifc matter, fhe matter remajjned 10.10.2011. Leamed cour|s though there was a tin4< respondent did not take p|- '^ ^{^F<yr4hT 'HTH^if ^f f^st if^f^R: '^3tRm<3T^T |a Mohaa Shrivastava, J. ^a, counsel for fhe petitioner. for fhe respondent, has been filed by the petitioner of the order dated 26th July, 2010 92. petitioner submitted that vide order ^rit petition was disposed of wifti a ', Korea (Baikunthpur) to consider in accordance with law and on its own preferably within a period of 8 weeks of representation submitted by the of the order of the Court along with .bmitted in the office of the 6.8.2010. It is submitted that though oceedings and opened an inquiry in the pending until it was decided on sel for fhe petitioner submits fhat even limit stipulated by the Court, the oper steps to ensure timely compliance :-HG—78 f^T l^tW ^RiW ~3^Ef '^}q|<n^, ^tfi^i<o [®l<rll^^< ..Cm. <1W(^ ia»iiTo|i ~ ~ 7 / ^ 200 ^!^\ TT5f5F ( ^°lfl<EI^) of the order of the Court, orders and proceedings of vj^hich aniouiits to utter disregard to the (he Court, On the other handj referring to the avemients was uo intention of the re^ which is reflected from thel the representation and ord| were immediately mitiatec further submits that the fhe respondent Usted fhe| time was consuined in time was granted to the proceedings could not be up in other of&cial work. was completed and fhe respondent had proceedec^ be passed and finally on lj is submitted that in thes^ be said to have committe4 Court, but there was at the earliest and finaUv subinitted by leamed bon^fide ^NN ^i4-i<vil* ^f f^^ <FT|^I< ^? 3?f?R 3?T^T co.l^ecting learned counsel for the respondent, jmade m tlie reply, subnutted that there ^pondent to flout the order of the Court, jfact that no sooner respondent received l^r passed by the Coiirt^ fhe proceedmgs by issuing notice to other part5'\ He o|rder sheets placed on record show that |case for inquiry on various dates and material & obtaining reply. Much jparties also and on certain occasions, Iproceeded as the respondent was held [t is submitted that ftiough the inquiry was posted for orders on 16.6.2011, for training. Therefore, order could not p. 10.2011, fhe order has been passed. It. circumstances, fhe respondent cannot willful disobedience of the order of fhe attempt made to decide tlie matter decision has also been taken. It is cjounsel for the respondent that the cs(se XI-HC—78 '^T'f^W Tim^I^T^RW ^Sf ^WM^, ^\W\^, (®!<r<j^li< x'wy. NtH^IT ^iTTI^ ' r ' "^ 200 ^TI^T TRW ( ^I^q^) IT^TOT Trf^T-2^?T •s respondent in her affidavit the delay which has been jhas tendered unconditional apology for c^used in deciding the representation. vijie From fhe reply and on record, it is found thf respondent. soon after rece^ one reason or fhe ofher, th{ has been finally decided observed that the responc^i comply wifh the order, b1 fixed, endeavor has to b^ stipulated tmie prescribedj for almost one year, whei decide the matter within receipt of copy ofthis orde| I do not find that aii moved by the responde| genume difficulty in con^] stipulated. The respondenjt the order of the Court considering that the re^] respondent did make anj ^ afr»l^t^4ll'^TTR^ff ^ f^S <F;4^K "^^tRFT^TT^T |ie order sheets which has been placed [t the mqutry was coramenced by the [pt of the copy of the order. However, for inquiry remained pending. The matter order dated 10.10.2011. It has to be |ent is not only under an obligation to .it, m cases where there is time limit made to decide the case within the by the Court. Matter remained pending eas, the direcUon of the Co^irt was to a period of 8 weeks from the date of y application for extension of time was it before the Court, expressing any plymg with fhe order withtn ttie time therefore has failed in complying with within ttie time stipulated. However, pondent is a yoiing officer and fhat effort to decide the matter, I am not -^- HC—78 ^ rf~ '^Tt^Nr ^n^i^Rfe Praveen *1(^C'ff StlNlcb T^f ^j^{<n^, ^tii<i4i<o^ [®tdiyl:il< .ce-^T?^/'/•^ 200 3T?^?T Tn^T (^o|[^<^T) inclined to proceed further shall remain cautious and order of the Court and ens complied with but are the order. comfelied The rule is according disposed of. c^i^?<n<fli 'HrTOf ^f f^^ <P?t^i< i73TRR37T^T }n the matter. However, fhe respondent t;areful in future in complying wifh the |Lire that the Court's order are not only with within the time stipulated in y discharged and the petition is fmally Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge p B^