HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR s PETITIONER Contempt Case (Cl No. 382 of 2009 Harijan Machhuva Sahkari Samiti, Maryadit, NandeH Sakti, Tahsii; Sakti, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Duiy registered as Co-operative Society having its registration number ^ 151 /1995, through its President Shri Ramanand Tandon, S/o. Shri Hariram Tandon, aged about: 53 years, R/o Ward No.1, Harijan Mohalla Sakti, Tahsil: Sakti, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versiis RESPONDENT Contemnor Ram Kumar Dewangan, Chief Municipai OfFicer, Nagar PaSika Parishad, Sakti, District: Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (Contempt Petition under Article 21S of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 & 12 ofthe Contempt ofCourts Act) Aopearance: Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent. ORALORDER (19.04.2010) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. Petitioner-Harijan Machhuva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondent for wiilfuj default in compliance of the order dated 22nd of January, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 388/2009. This Court whlle disposing W.P.(C) No. 388/2009 passed the follwing order on 22nd of January, 2009:- With the consent of tearned counsel appearing for the partses, the petition ss heard finaliy. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submiis that the petifjoner does not want to contest th:s inatter on merits, at this stage. However, learr 3d counsel submit that the Chief MunEcips' Offcer, Nagar Palika Parsshad, •*-,„ ^ CwrtCTnot Case (Q No. 352 of2009 /A(9 Sakti/respondent No.5 may be directed to consider the pending application of the petitioner dated 26-12-2007 (Annexure-P/9), in accordance with the policy, as early as possible. 3) Learned counsel for the State submits that, in the interest of justice, the respondent No.5 may be directed accordingly. 4) Since the application of the petitioner is pending consideration, it would-be expedient ifthe respondent No.5 is directed to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and State policy, expeditiously preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5) Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of." 1^( Mr. Deshmukh submits that since the application of the petitioner was not consider by respondent No.5 of the writ petition, therefore, the petitioner had to file this contempt petition. Reply to the contempt petition has been filed by the respondent. Along wrth reply,copy of the proceedings of meeting dated 20.2.2009 has also been filed as Annexure-R/2, which reads as under:- "q?FrfcFr ^f^ Mlfci*! xrf^ ^rt tol^yllQ^^N f^X) W? 4!lcicbl TTf^ W^t ^ Nt? ^? f^TT^ 20/02/2009 ^ TTif^T ?R7lI? WFP 01 ^'^^F3§^- 5R<^ ^i 01:- HJTl4l^l ^TCT ^t^d^l ^ iSrqiW %388 ^ 2009 ?fN"'T ^T ^S^I^ ^f^ -g^ M'ricj^ ^ XR ^T ^fTcM ^ ^ ^? ^ ^H toi T^T fN? I W^f ^TR? 01- W^ SFF^T ^H TFFfrT ^ET ''^fcTO ^ 3?1^r ^T ST^R Trf^ ^ w^v Tpn i i5R?w ^ fNR ^ f^F f^TOT 7PIT T)il^4llctcbl WI^ ^ ST^lFTW i£CT ^I?TF? ^r xra^ffo cN ^ TR siNfecT ^^ ig Tiii^ilci4)i iKi siFr '^Fn f^rfcp 20. 12.07 ^t ^ ^iT "rTOT 2[T ^ ^I TII^III ^ ^T?FT ^v^?cT 3nA 4lyi^tc{1^ Trf^ ^ 'SR^ ?? 10 f^TW 03.03.08 ^ SI^fR ;FR ^ ^RT ^^ ^ S^FT ^ ^®^iq iERT ^rdm ^ <t^cb<<ui ^ fNM' sirR ^ f^ ^TRR ^M ^ q?^ w^ ^^ w^ |f t 1 cicr ^NET ^r f^to sTpff^T ^rr ^nc}?? ^rRq? ^ w^^s ^.os f^Ti^ 04.10.08 ^ ^ ^^T^?ira;T ^r^q^ si^wrr ^ s^n^ ^rr'TOT t i <!^cb<<ui ^ ^P??TTC^ ^r ^Tcft ^^PTT ^THT 3Tra?W t j cRT W^ 11^4?'("1 ^ ^k4icb'<ut W^t ^FR ^cpRT tcT ^t ^FTT WH M^ltRd t 1 ^RT Pii^ira ^ TR^I 'qicR t^ ^T ^T Ti^ ^ t '^ ^nNt ^t 'i^cb^i ^ fNN Wi wrf^T ?tTn i am: R^i^^'ijci ^ w^r ^ fN?r fNr ^7?rr t ^ w^ w^ra ^t 1N^iN ^ 1T?^^f^r^^^l^ cht4ciiil ^ir arprpft an^T ^N^T cra? WJIRT ^ yTRft t I ^ 3TT?I?? ^ ^rRT ^ Wt^Rft ^t ^t ^ Z^ 51<TR •^W^ ^ "cft ^t t 1" ^^:.,,^ 1 ^ i ^f .^ :fs-.yy ^ Contemot Case (C) No. 352 of2QQ9 Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behatf of the respondent submits that in view ofthe above resolution/decision taken by the Municipal Council, the application of the petitioner stands disposed of on 20.2.2009, therefore, no contempt is made out. Mr. Deshmukh does not dispute that respondent No.5 had to take a decision on the application dated 26.12.2007 filed by the petitioner for giving the tank in question on lease for fisheries. According to the resolution (Annexure-R/2), the application dated 26.12.2007 stands disposed of and the decision has been taken well in time granted by this Court. Since the order passed by this Court appears to have been compiied by the respondent/Council well within time, therefore, 1 do not deem it appropriate to proceed further in this matter. Accordingly, proceedings of contempt against the respondent is dropped at this stage. j Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \t-^r4.A^