IN_THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU^) PETITIONER ^^ ty>'-' ..::-v-"' ~.-^' ^-'"1 -^^ e- ff CONTEMPT CASE (C) No.3-34/ 2011 -Lok s.ngh Neti, SinglBBencB S/o. Shri Motilal Neti, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Gram Mohli, Post-Kongsara, Tahsil - Kota, District-Bilaspur (CG) ^^Y ^ ^••"....-' c\^ °)• Versus RESPONDENTS :'" 1. Thakur Ram Singh, Collector, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. B.K. Rajput, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) •c CONTEMPTPETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF^THE CONTEMPT OP_COURT^ACT AND UNDER ARTICLEf215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ XI-HC—78 311^1 ^a R-<[«ti ^snan^tgniN; F NIHMI thHiqi T5f "4|<<|wq, ®T)ly'i(o,fsldl'y^'!. .<SV^:-...ca.<5!S/CJ?";.'°).2:.^/.1 \ Wl; 200 St^V ~<^V (Tjpf^Sf^ET) T^IIW gfta sn^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan 14-09-2011 Shri N. K, Chatterji, counsel fo| cftit([tn<ft''f ili^T "^f fs^ <F*f^i< ^? afRn 3Di?i Shrivaslava, J. r the petitioner/s. l-1eard. Learned counsel for the FJetitioner/s submits that earlier the petitioner/s had filed writ pefftion bfefore this Court aggrieved by notice dated 06-04-2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Assistant Commissioner. 1 In the aforesaid writ petition, staterhent was made by the learned State counsel that the notice dated 06-04 |2011 is gnly a tentative opinion of the authority and the fact that the petitioher/s have been given a notice shows that no final decision in the matter htsbeen taken and the same would be only after the receipt of reply. Consicjering the aforesaid statement, the writ petition was finally disposed off ot|>serving that the show cause notice shows tentative opinion and not respondents shall duly considerthe also submitted that in the spirit of th| on the part of the respondents to tal^ but decision has not been taken, whil petition was disposed off observing final decision and further that the •eply filed by the petitioner/s and hold appropriate enquiry before coming to| any conclusion adverse to the interest of the petitioner/s. It is submitted th^t though reply has been submitted by the petitioner/s on 13-07-2011, till d^te, no decision has been taken. It is ^ order of the Court, it was incumbent e decision in the matter expeditiously, ;h amounts to willful disobedience. The order passed by this Co|jrt on 04-07-2011 shows that the writ that the petitioner/s have approached this Court against the notice datfed 06-04-2011 and in view of the submission made by learned Stat^ counsel. It is not the case of the v '•5^-.' /-y^ s ..s..-.. " '^^;'..^-"'"""'^ ; I 1 k '-^.^/ "Kv-^-...:..^-^^' XI-HC—78 311^1V, K-ii'* 'WT 3TT^T ff)^!^» Tumane '3"5[ "MIIK'l^, »fl1y'i<o, fstdl'My ^ 11NCTI ^lKleb TH. 200 sn^r Tf^i (lic<t^«f<^T) petitioner/s that without considerin^ the reply, certain orders have now been passed. The matter has not date. Moreover.-the notice dated 09 the respondent-Collector with a copy] <=bl-4f<rt41''T tt^trff'if fst<:l 'rf^f^R ^ 3tf?PT ^i^t been decided by the respondents till -04-2011 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, and it is found that tfie petitioner/s have submitted reply to to the Assistant Commissioner. In that view of the matter, 1 am notinclined to issue notice to the respondents. Accordingly, the petition is disfnissed. No orders asto cost. ^ Sd/- , Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge