1./61. 'Mzyi§p£Ibl-ittteJS y& M.ilM^ 'ZI.-mja pyh? (^uayi^. Jt^pMh.) siz-A^Eie PjrPKl4>yti? it-^iitMe ••.•;'"y¥^BS?,.Ei (oitoa) ihife-i4tiriy& wv^ ';KUr>n!,>n ^P^ OJ^JS '^lt>l^) O^ Oll y& (9 ^ ^S-" .a.tee'V'si!. Xl^K^G^ ^/^--""'~ "'s'"^ ff s;-/ \~ {OltOS ihifc-.^ijaya w^ '^U^jjft ?*?*(<>* ^UtB &h O^iS '^yi Mh?>fr y& (t' (oiroa) lhH3.-?.(J).^KT. ll^lnj ^UI'IAI,I^ W^OP OJ^K ^L&fc, '^y °y" °^ O^LK yfr (e (oitOfi) ihifc-.y^ialia wv^ '>\\t\^w' wf^xt, tAp^ '^lfcl^ OJ^EIO^ ^ (z -^ i^aO ^^ww •sr, (OL.O&) i£ti^'J2^1^± 'kblt OJAhO^O^ ^^ ^ (JiL2:tt?u^) •^ji^ ^M&^ ^15'^lMl&^kti^a (t^/^- lnlrGl":)iy& H^u .-i^&S-^ ' ' ~^~e r.^a //^// ^^^^^^; »d ,••>>, ........ i^y5.-rf<^<^..^-""" (OltOa) lhll3.-^Ur("y"-ll^iy 'IW^ ..'7c^n?T7^'5)^ Mtt ^lby 'jits 59 MtMi fi& '^ ••:"qySJyc-J l±l^yys- oite 1^UA ^bii^Byki^ : jp<t'l«t>l%Jlh' j^Jiflft UthlbtsK a^^ &^ A&^/ -ff^Affi 800Z/ Qtti |<tiy+fr-HsUTBt>»R a)&G ^>y^-rA3-7 s^^lpy °)irH>(^i(a tiJ^lbit^ ]as£L k^blh : JSltl^ c^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCrARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHM MANINDRA MOHAN SHRFVASTAVA, J. Contempt Case (C) No.288/2008 PETITIONER Ramkhilawan Sahu Versus RESPONDENT Shri Durgesh Mishra & others Petition under ArticleJ215 pfthe Constitution ofladia read with Section 12 ofthe Contempt of Coyrts Act 1971 Appearance: None for the petitione'r, even in the second round. Ms. Tripti Dewangan, Advocate appears on behalf of ShriA.S. Kachhawaha, counsel for respondents No. 1, 2, 48E 5. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 1.02.2011) 1. On earlier dates also, no representation was made on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Shri Kashif Shakeel, learned Amicus Curiae has already been permitted to withdraw his appearance by this Court on earlier date. 3. In this contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged that the order dated 16.4.2003 passed by this Court in W.P. No.1414/02 and order dated 4.12.2003 passed in Contempt Petition No. 109/03 have been willfully disobeyed. 4. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner fUed a; petition for setting aside allotment of land in favour of respondents No. 9 to 2 - r ^^ 22 in W.P. No. 1414/02. The submission was made before the Court that against those allotments, representations were made which have not been decided even after the Secretary of the Revenue Department issued instructions to the Collector/respondent No.2 therein, to decided the matter. On such submission made, vide order dated 16.4.2003, this Court disposed of the matter with a direction to the Collector/respondent No.2 therein, to decidei the matter after hearing fhe parties as early as possible, preferably within a period of 4 raonths. Thereafter, this Court passed another order on 4.12.2003 in Contempt Petition No. 109/03 granting further time of 2 months to decide the representation. Thereafter, the Collector passed an order on the representation on 17.2.2004 by which the case of the petitioner was dismissed. Against fhis order of dismissal, the present petition has been filed on the pleadings that the order which has been passed on 17.2.2004 amounts to willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 4.12.2003 in Contempt PetitionNo. 109/03. 5. Learned cou|tf6/of respondents No. 1, 2, 4 SsS submits that this Court had directed fhe authority to decide the representation of the petitioner after hearing the parties and in respectful compliance of fhe order passed by this Court, the Collector heard the parties and a detailed order has been passed by fhe Collector on 17.2.2004 in Case No.33/ B- 121/2002-03 within a period of 2 months as directed by this Court vide order dated 4.12.2003. - <S .^^s&^^'^ / 'Ste,, "3®,j? ^%^.-.'^' ^K^ -3- Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that by passing the aforesaid order, the order passed by this Court has been complied with in its true spirit and if the petitioner is aggrieved with the same his remedy lies elsewhere. 6. I have perused the records. 7. This Court had initially passed an order on 16.4.2003 directing the Collector to decide fhe representation of the petitioner within a period of 4 monfhs. As the order was not passed within that period, the contempt petition was filed registered as contempt petition No. 109/03. In that petition, considering the circumstances of the case, this Court allowed 2 month's further time to decide the representation. Thereafter, the Collector considered the matter and passed an order on 17.2.2004, which is well within the period of 2 nionths as granted by this Court. This Court did not direct the authority to decide the representation in a particular manner. The authority has considered the matter and passed fhe order. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the order, his remedy would be to take recourse to the remedy as may be available to him under the law. I am of the opinion fhat no case of willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court is made out. 8. The rule is therefore discharged and fhe petition is accordingly Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen