c ^}" ,^:'' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR CONTEMPT CASB (Ct NQ. IT^- OF 2010^^efieoi^ ^•ETITIONER ^^•^'^^'••1 ^^a^^-;88^ •^d..-88""' i '•3..S-!^(V^ ^^' h.^-:Z,l^ ^ESPONDENTS /CONTEMNORS 2. 3. ^Shankar Lal Kurre ^ S/o. Shri Mohan laj Kurre Aged about....^... R/o. Village - Chhote Sipal P.0. Bade Sipat, Tehsil - Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VBRSUS Nand Kumar Verma Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) K.R. Pisda, Director Public Instructions Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) A.K. Bhargawa District Education Officer, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Yogesh Shukla, District Education Officer, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 2(At(B1 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT. 1971 READ WITH SECTION 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. •^^? ^r,,^^ I 1^^£%IJIC-22. ^7^"' ^•" ^-^••':^ 3TT^I'^T f<Tli<=h OT^T 5t^+iich ^f^a Dwpii ^^r ^i^icn^, ^Ti1^^<o, Mcni^y ani^r '^TSR -(7£v3e IC') '^o ^ tllNdl -g^^-—••—•——"^•>^F[ 2( 1^E^T" ^ ^ <m^r'^n^n: Trfin SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra IVIohiin Shrivastava. J 07-01-2011 Shri Anupam Dubey, couns^l for Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel Leamed counsel for the petjitioner the respondents to decide the repr^sentation same has been decided with de| 31/07/2010. Learned counsel for the delay in dedding the representatit>n. was considered by the r^ponder^t engaged on adhoc basis and wc^riked services were not continued. in the reply, respondent apology. Considering that the representation, though belatedl^ reply and unconditionat apologyl discharged. The petitioner wouid be at may be available to him under representation. the petitioner. for respondertt No.2 and 3. submite ttiat this Court had directed within a reasonabte time but ttie |ay of about four years victe order eiated r^spondents submits that there has be@n He submits that the petitioner's case authority and itwas found VhsA he was for certain period and thepeafter his No|2 c^l<Llt<yl<flT1 'WT^f ^ 'fe1^ <F31^K ^T srf^FT-3TT^T and 3 have tendered their unconditional respondent authorify had decided the in view of the submisslons marie in ttie made by the r^pondertfs, the rule js ahd liberty to telce reeourse to such remedy as [the law against the order rejecting his Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [Tfi^ ^f^