HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case (CiviU No. 101 of2007 Dr. Sint. Veena Tripafhi, Aged 45 years, W/o. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Tripathi, R/o. New Bus Stand, Beinetara, Distt. Durg (Chliattisgarh) Versus Dr. A.J.V. Prasad, Seci-etary, Higher & Techiucal Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) K.D.P. Rao, Secretary, Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RBAD WITH SECTION 10 OP THB CONTBMPT OF COURTS ACT Appearaace : RESPONDENTS -. Manoj Paraajpe, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Siaha, Advocate for respondent No.2 (20.11.2009) Heard. The petitioner has ffled this petition for iaitiation of contenipt proceedings agamst respondents for aUeged wilUul default iit coinplyin^g the order dated 22.7.2005 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3080/2005. Wtule disposing of fhe said \vrit petition, fhis Court has passed fhe foUowing order: ' Considering the facts aud circuinstaaces of the case aad also coasidermg the niaterial on record, fhis Court dtrects fhat if fhe represeutation filed by fbie petitioner on 26.4.2005 (AmiexuTe P-13) has not been disposed ofso far, then the concemed Secretaiy shall dispose of fhe aforesaid representation as early as possible preferably wifhia a period of 6 weeks ftom. the date of filiag of a fresh copy of the representatiou along with a copy of fhis writ petition and certified copy of the order passed by tius Court. ~"0. /. With fhe aforesaid observations/directions this petition stands finally disposed of Certt&ed copy as per rules. rf--"S!» Contempt Case (Crnl) No. 101 of2007 It is brought to fhe notice fhat the representation has been decided on 28.4,2007 by fhe concemed auttiority and it has been icjected, thereafter, a writ petition has ab-eady been filed chaUengirtg fhe rejection order ofthe concemed aufhority. Though the order passed by fhis Court was a tune fram.e order but Mr. Abhishek Siaha submits that. the delay ia coniplyiag the order has occurred on account oftrausfer ofrespondent No. l and joiniag of respoudent No,2 as Secretary on 29.5.2006. He fiu-ther submits that after joraiug, respondent No.2 expedited tbe inatter and has taken a decision, therefore delay ia coiuplying fhe order m.ay be condoned, He also submits fhat respondent No.2, has issued show-cause notice to the concenied ofBcer on whose accouat, the delay appears to have occun'ed. He subinits that tlie action was takea bonafidely, fherefore, fhere is no wfllful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Considering the facts and circuinstaaces of the case, particularly fhe circuiastance fhat fhe representati.on has beea decided aad the order passed on representation has already been chaUenged by the peti.tioner ia aiiother writ petition aud fh.at respondeat No.2 has explaiued ttie delay in compliaa.ee ofttie order, I do not deein it appropiiate to proceed further in tiiis uiatter. Accordhigly the contem.pt petition is dropped at fhis stage. Sd/- Suml Kumar Sinba Judge vatti