® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH At'blLASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (Cl N0. 3^3 / 2011 ^ APPLICANT PETITIONER ^ ^n.^ ^:' '.5:'>! ,--:"A\rr \\ o^K NbN-APPLICANT (CONTEMNORt Mahendra Singh Son of late Sachchan Singh, aged about 49 years, R/o. In-front of Jute Mill Gate, Banjin Pali, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS Rakesh Jaiswal, son of not know to the petitioner, aged about 47 years, Coininissoner, Municipal Corporation, Raig- arh, District Raigarh (C.G.), CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONrl2 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT FOR INITIATING OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAJNST THE RESPONDENT FOR WILFUJ. DISOBEDIENCE QF THE ORDER DATED 11-08-2011, PASSEDINW.RC.No. 4542/2011 XI-HC—78 ^WCW^l^l^ ~^^ ^ww^, ^Tit^^i^, t^rray ^^o'^^l^ v •FH; 200 W^?T TT5W (1c[?f33T^) ^^ ^r f<^i<+ ^T^T S^^ ^^icfi '^nw^f^Tsrr^T SB : Hon'ble Shn Manjndra Monarli SnnvastevaZJ 1S-11-2Q11 Shri Amritanshu Bajpai, coi Heard. Learned counsei for the pe1 ct>i<Lif<yi<flti TrR^?f ^f fe^ <i^^i< '^^3^H3:IT^T nse! for the petitioner. itioner submits that the writ petition fiied by the petitioner eariier before thi^ Court was disposed of in view' of the statement given by the counse! for the Corporation that the representation dated 2/8/2011 fiied by the pet|ioner wili be considered and decided in accordance with iaw and on its ov|/n merits, within a period of three weeks. Recording the said statem^nt, t'ne writ petition was disposed of. On 23/08/11, the petitioner submitte' aiong with copy of order dated 11 expiry of three weeks, no order h^is been communicated to the petitioner. The order passed by the Even though, there was r^ petitlon was dlsposed of on the t) by the counsel for the respondenj of the petitioner as per the order is under obiigation to take deci^ counsei forthe Corporation. [I representation before the Commissioner f8/2011 passed by the Court but even after Court on 11/08/11 shows that the writ petition flied by the petitioner w^s disposed of recording statement of the counsei for the Corporation that t|<e representation wouid be considered and declded within a period of three Vsijieeks. o specific direction by the Court, the writ >asis of soiemn statement made at the bar / Corporation to decide the representation 3f the Court. The Commissioner therefore, ion in view of the statement made by the 1 '&^ K ^?: XI-HC—78 ^IN^T «»*<(<:?» ^sr ^t^id-M, ^Tny4i^, 'teray ^ 6^^Ji^o.3^/f/ 260 ^^ "T5RRT (^gsi^f) 3'TI^T ^T ^Job "cT8?T 3T?^T ^^iich Deepii '^fFW^rf^T 3T[^T -^- At present, instead of jssuir] cr»{^fo<<li1RPTOf ^f f^A ii^t^K ^3?RP:?31?t?I |g notice, tnis petition is Tsnaiiy assposed of observingihat if no decision is tahjen within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this or^ier which Is now being passed, contempt proceedings would beinitiated ag^inst the respondent. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge