Q^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CGJ , „ ,_ ^"ffle Benc^ cr^e C^3 CONTEMPT PETITIGN N0. ^6 \ / 2011 APPLICANT: M/s Lalit Construction Company Head Office: MIG 33, Padamanabhpur, Durg (C.G.), Through its partner ShrFLalit Oswal, S/o Late Deoraj Oswal, Aged about 61 years, R/o ' MIG 33, Padamanabhpur, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS NON APPLICANTS/ CONTEMNOR ^.^ ^2€? - ^^(^ ^^<<;r R.K. Khambra The Then Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bridge Construction Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) V.K. Singh (Bedia) Current Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bridge Construction Division, Bilaspur(C.G.) Shri Kant Tiwari The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (B&R) Division, Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLEJ15 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. The above named applicant respectfully begs to subniit as under:. ^ T^T^M^[,. ^ITFI^, f^TRT^: 6^J~- <^£-CO^-^)1^ )'0 ^^ -^I -fN^ -^iT^jt^-iTO^ I^T^lfe^llt^? SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 11-08=2011 Shri Saurabh Jain, counsel f(^r the the This petition has been fjl disobedience of order dated CourtinVV.P.(C)No.121/10. Learned counsel for the p^t petitionwas disposed offwith libertl same shaii be decided expeditiousp^ decided, but ti'li date; the petitioner^ From the averments madei placed on record, it appears that Executive Engineer, PVVD (Buildin^js PWD, Durg Division; Durg Construction Division, Bilaspur. Oi|t according to the petitioner, thre^ respondents 2 and 5. The and 21/4/2011, which record that th|e^ Taking into consideration tha^ the petitioner and this Court dire|ct expeditiousiy, the respondents ou^ht reasonabie time, even though, nc| order. However, in these petitioner. led by the petitioner aileging willful 12/1/^010 passed by the Division Bench ofthis circumsiiances ?f>i^ct4^ •Rm?ff -^ As'^ IJ^R -^ Z'^T ^titioner submits that even though the ^ to file representation, observing that the |y, in accordance with iaw, if not aiready representation has not been decided. and the documents which have been petitioner made representation to the and Road); Durg, Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, PVVD, Bridge |t ofthe five petitioners in the writ petition, representations have been made to are dated 23/3/2010, 21/4/2011 i|ey are reminders. the representations have been made by ijcted the representation to be decided to have taken final decision within a time limit has been prescribed in the >, the petitioner shal! submit fresh represe|itations ^.—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ^-^^ ^b. '^ ,f"-^- '^ l%^ ^-w[ •^qjziT^^, '^"^TT^, 'fsi^iT^ ; E ^\- E S \-{ ^' ..<2'Y*.....^?.fe.&1^.2^/" Q( 3^[^^C^^T) ^i^T'^rfq^te ^T^itlT'iTO^ Deepii |representation to the respondents. [two months from the date of receipt| jbe at iiberty to revive this petition jdecision in the matter. With the aforesaid observatioris i^TT^ —^ — jf no decision is taken within a period of |of copy ofthis order, the petitioner shail pgainst those, who have not taken any ^rafeF^T iTFT^f ^' "•g-^'^r^R ^ Z"^T , the petition is finaily.disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^\wf\^ ^^ ^uii^, ii^-ii^iM—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.