BEFORE THE HON'BLE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR(CG) CONTEMPT CASE (C) N0. ___/2010 §|j 13A^ COMPLAINANT (Petitioner) 'f^" ^ .s?.--^ ^ •"'^3^' <*l-wwAwiy"-^''i( 'f^"". ...••'' -%r.'^.-''' .Q? Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri. Puniram Sahu, Aged about 52 Years, Ex. Subedar from Army Service Core, Residing at: Street No. 2 Jawahar Nagar, AKALTARA District: Janjgir-Champa (CG) VERSUS CONTEMNER (Respondent) Shri. R. S. NAYAK (S/o Not known to the Petitioner) Working as ChiefExecutive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, AKALTARA District: Janjgir-Champa (CG) ^" CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE" 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1 a^^f^tfei^ ^tl.iq^rwilN; L -S-Sf ^Er!?TT^I, 'g-WETR', tsTcTCTy. ^,......^£.(^.^.C^)..^^/^ 20 sn^i ifve (Tjcifip^^) SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 22.11-2011 Shri B.P.Rao, counsel for bnn Y.S. i naKur, counse! Fhjs petition has been fiiep by the petitioner alieging wiiiful dssobedience of order dated 9/4/2010 passed in '4 it is submitted by iearnecj Coliector had directed the Chiefl the petitioner and prepare merit without any decisjon or any actioifi pursuant to that order. iaKing into consiaeration the Chief Executive Officer /to representation was submitfed to 1 Chief Executive Officer did not been riled aiong with repiy to the Learned counsei for the pf the respondent to take decisionj undue deiay, the matter v/as dj shov/s thai the respondent sai o'v| that there has been some delay giTqferth sm?S 4 ftisi' '.'N")? ^" 3!fyi sn^i T. or tne respondent. V.P.(S) No.708/10. counsel ror the petitioner that even though ths Executlve Officer to consider the candidature of < list jn accordance with rutes, the matter remained ithe aforesaid circumstances, thJ-s Court directed Isonsider snd decide the case of the petltioner wlthout undue delay. it is suEjmitted that the copy of the oro'er aiong with the Chief Executive Ofncer on 29i4/2010 but the Itake decision in the matter ai ter Inordinate deiay, finaliy an order was passep oniy on 17/1 0/11 (Annexure R/1) which has now |;ontemptpetition. ^tiiioner submits that even though v.'hue directin! this Court haa directed to take decislon vi/ithout ^cided after T'/z years by the respondent which ler tne matter and tioutsd tne order of tiie Couri. On the other hand; tearn^d counsel for the respondent subm'ned that the ;ase of ths petitioner has been ^ecided by the respondent. He ho'.vever, submlts in deciaing tne represemanon. Learnea counsel for the respondent submits that $s the order of the Court has been compiied with, ar TOST,(ra:ifi?n3—l'S/140—2/2011—1,50,000. -+•+ w^v w ^nss OTisn^i-aTtR -fSf ^qTq^TO, •S~Tn^c:PT?, t3RTOiy ...a^±.:....^.^l^^^li'0 sf^ TW?? (Tpi^^'i °? Qourt tnougn oeiaieaiy, unconastiona! accepted and the respondent may| The order passed by the dedsion without undue delay. respondent to decide the matteil contempt pefitlon thatthe represej from the acknowiedgment appearih Deen suDstantialiy deniea Dy tne asong wren representation was s( understand as to what prevented } of the petitioner and sltting over thj 'rue it is that no specific t] case of the petitioner shall be dei|;i spirit in which the order was passt to declde the matter exoeditiousili Deen riiea cy the responaent, tne much less Justiflcation to satisfy] decided within a reasonable peri undenaKen is tept In view, ons is consumea in a'ecjdjng ine maner. complying with the Court's ord^! borders contempt. Howevsr, sea| tnat inere was no Intention as s). decision !R the matter has been g>T<rf»nihsFTpff i; few 'sfv^K ^K 'S^i S^ Spotogy tendered by the respondent may be dd on 9/4/20'IQ obliged the respondent to take Fhe spirit of the order therefore required the expeditious!y. Vtfhat has been stated in the htation was submitted on 29/4/201 0, as refiected in ihe representation (Annexure C'4), has not irespondent. Therefore, the order of the Court, ewed 6n 2y('4/2010 itself. This Court faiis to ;he respondent in taking the decision In the case g maEer ror sucn a long time. ime ijmlt was an/en but ffie ooservation tnat ine ided wlthout undue deiav ciesriv expresses the sd. The rsspondent was obliged unde.r the iaw / wlthout undue delay. in the repiy, which has •espondent has not placed on record any ground the Court as to whv tne maaer souia not De d. cven if tne nature of exerc'se reauirea to D.s at complete ioss as to whysuch a iong time was It appears that the respondent v/as negiigent in T. This aaitude of the respondent perilousiy •ned counsel for the respondent rervently urged jch to flout the order of the Court and as the taken, unconditional apology tendered may be w I, n'»rt?n3—»s/i 40—i/io 11—i, 50,000. 1.11 '-"f—-. — J- ""°^.. ^fe.1 '•^!':^ '^B ^ ^ . iR-' '3=s? ^n?fl7?rs, ^^twre, T^! ,.j^d:.....C?^±.(^....lll;A?/CT SII^siqfffi^iW ipnan^iiwqw Dseptr •FsgRTt'ofsg aii^i -3- ^>N?r^r •qroaf 4 fe<st TfSF! ^isiTSman^i Taking inio consideration t!1e submission of tearned counsel for the respondent though this Court findsjthat respondent was caslously negtigent in compiying with the ordsr of the Courl the decision has finaiiy been takerl required. Ruie is therefore dischargei Before parting with the case, fc^ :, in ihe totaiifry of the circumstances anc that in tne maGer, no further procsea'ngs are p. The pefition is fina!!y dlsposed off. |is uoun oosen/es that me responaent snouia be carefui and cautious in fuiure in ^ie macer of compliance of the orders of the court. ir tne conauct ls founa repeatlsc; in future, ssrious view of the mar-sr would betaken. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge iBil