BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF_,CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPTCASE (Civil) No. S^O /201 1 (Arising out of order dated 23.10.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1635/2010 by Single Bench ofthis Hon'ble Court) PETITIONER Shankar Lal Sinha, S/o Mohan Lal Sinha, aged about 43 years, Patwari, Sub'-Divisional Office, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ;?''}.. ^ J^ VERSUS CONTEMNOR : B.L. Tiwari Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement, Pft^°-""^Shn^"a"^....,.--" '"'" ^^^ ^......•••-:""^"{'\ Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.). CONTEMPT -PETmoN UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. '^^ 'i{W\v\<i, Wta3T3', feTRf^^ a^.^-. ;.../.^ei.LtM?..:..^ 'I I! SiT^I '^1 Ri-li* wnan^i 9>ii'» SII^T 'wv (1i?is^() wnw ^iftd sn^( SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohaii Shrivastava.j. 17-10-2011 Shri Basant Dewangan, coun^el for the petitioner. Heard. Learned counsel for the pettioner submits that vide order dated 23/10/10 passed in W.P.(S) No.1635/05,<th^ directed to reconsider the case <] awarding him marks based on the ii of preceding five years. It was furtil exercise, petitioner is abie to secijire more marks than marks secured by last candidate in the general category, ^ Nayab Tahsildar with all consequeni] Learned counsei for the pe< representation dated 28/10/2010 fd time iimit has been fixed, the ord comptled with within a reasonabie tii^ie. Though, no time limit has be^ by this Court, the respondent is un| Court within a reasonable time and iikes. The order waspassed on Aimost one year has elapsec| '^iFrfCTqh "cpRfi'? fe<3t -tSsilman^i State and resoondent - Commissioner were if the petitioner in accordance with iaw by 'asis of gradlna aiven to him in relevant ACRs er observed that if as a resuit of the aforesaid e will be emitled to appointment on the post of ial benefits except actuai arrears of pay. itionFir submits that the order passed by the Court was communicated to th^ respondent as also to the State vide lowed by number of representations, but no decision in the matter has been taHen. He submits that even though no specific srs passed bv the Court are required to be 'n fixed for compieting the exereise as directed der obiigation to comply with the order of the he cannot sit over the order for the time he 23/10/2010 and it was communicated to the Secretary of the State in the same (]!epartment as also to the Commissioner, Land Records wav back on 29/10/10. This cieariy shows that the State authorities are-cailousty negligent towards the <)rder of the Court and they are sitting over the ^r'eiaSSv ys'ni^y, vw'Sfwsf— FS/140—2/20'1- •-1.50,000. <•• .;^!«Sf^ WVIW, OTWira—FS/140—]/20 • I - -' .50,000 ./' .^si'assi:^'' /fx^ /e^\ '^•^•"•^'^••'^'"''iS: i) 'ay^ ::;%s~...3:y •SSiSSS^' —;.'<.-.:." 351^1 q!T K-fi'ti aii^i'giiiN; Deept' 'a^ '^w\v"j,, Wkpre, 'f^rra^^: fc....<io.&C?J..U£i3^J?/ sn^r •c^? (Tp?3^() TRiiwitea'.^i — orders of the Court and taking been fixed. i-iowever, considering that passing the order in the writ pe^ contempt proceedings, it would respondent to complete the exercii Accordingiy, if the order decision is not taken as directed, receipt of copy of this order, the| contempt petition and if it is found serious view of the matter wouid initiated against the erring officiais. Considering that the order authorities and no decision is bein^ even though aimost one year has e| Secretary ofthe State. With the aforesaid of. unjdue advantage that no specific time limit has ^N?rit^ -WRfl -ci •fei<Tt -(N^R w aiRro siiSsi n|o time iimit has been fixed bv this Court whiie itition, instead of issuance of notice initiating pe proper to grant some more time to tne IS0. p^ssed by the Court is not compiied with and vjithin a period of three months from the date of petitioner would be at liberiy to revive this |hat the order of the Court is not compiied with, |>e taken and contempt proceedings wouid be 4f the Court is not being compiied with by the taken in compliance of the order of the Court |apsed, a copy of this order be sent to the Chief observati{ans / directions, the petition is finaily disposed ' ^ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge i ;^:;^ >5Tft--^ SROTTy^, tl^RT^Fra—I-'S/l40—2 /?.Q; S—1. S0,00©: ,^. ./'