'^. <l"l IN THE HON"BLE HIGH-COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR g|pgl& BeUCfc CONTEMPT PETITION ( CIVIL^ N0. 1^1 /2006fS.B.) ^ (PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT) PETITIONER „ '.,, iJ^Smt. Laxmi Choubey, W/0 Late Shri Gyan Chand Choubey ... Aged about 35 years r^^' R/o Madhuban Road ^"^\v Near Maharani School P-\^\'A Dayalband Bilaspur (C.G.) YERSUS ^" RESPONDENT : ^ Amresh Kumar Area M:anager,Food Corporation of India ,District Office Link Road,Bilaspur (C.G.) v^' PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT) d f 371^1^1 h^ an^i ^THW^rftcT INNII^ T ^uE[ ^ii^id^, ^'a1^<iG, [Q«ni<iy f 3iiip?r ''^ra? 'RP-^IT 5h^|cb . WI 200 '^^sr' ^STT^T ^<1T^R-^f^T cni^(<n4<i 'HT^iT ^ f^st ^f^i^K ^ 3^<m ^TS^T SB :^Ion!lble Shri Manindra Bltohan Shrivs^tava, J. 7.3.2011 Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, c|3unsel for the petitioner. Shri Pramod Venna, Sr. counsel for the respondent. Advocate with Shri Sumit Verma, In the light of order da(ted 5th May, 2008 passed by fhe Supreme Court in Civil Appe|al No.3371/08, arising out of tlie order dated 28.8.2006 passedj the respondent submits fhat| proceeded with any further. Leamed counsel for fhe the respondent has not com) passed on 17th January, 2(] by this Court, leamed counsel for this contempt petition cannot be petitioner, however, submitted ftiat ^lied wifh fhe order of the Court >06 in its letter and spirit and, therefore, this contempt petiti(j>n has been filed. In its order dated 5th M^y 2008, the Supreme Court, while setting aside the tnterun or| observed thus: "4. The said o^ appellant. We compassionate ap] order dated 9.5.201 der passed in contempt petition, der is challenged by fhe ind that the appellant considered the a^plication of respondent for pointment and passed the 36. Even if the said order is j v:n-^ %f7^ ^^^. y ^•% s y ^ T XI-HC-22 z^r ^ii<4idzl. ^nl^'Ko. fG)«ni^<i< siri^r TT^? s TrP7?TT^H(^*"*****"*"*'***'**""*"***"**'<^ 200 'i^^sr' OT^T^T i^^Jch <3T(^Y 5^^ich ^rficf Praveen ^ .^ ^TT^r ^RH^R ^rftpr erroneous, the ren\ challenge the said| not to file a told fhat the ordei under challenge in by the respondent'1 ^edy of the respondent is to order dated 9.5.2006 and conte^npt petition. In fact we are dated 9.5.2006 is already |a sepamte writ petition filed Therefore, I am not in' matter. The rule is fherefore accordingly finaUy disposed of. <^i<4f<n<i1ri °RT^rf^ "f^t ^^K ^T ^tf^fH W^T plmed to proceed turther m fhe discharged and ttie petition is Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge l"ft^ tp<?^