HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ @ CONTEIVIFTPETITION N0.121/2005 y' PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Dr.G.S.Matialwar, Sto Shri R.S. Mahalwar, aged about54years, Ayurwed (IVIedical) Qfficer, posted at .Dantewada, Bistt. South Bastar (Dantewacla),Chhattisgarh, R/o Near l%>teshwarShlv Mandir, Kota Ward.Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus Dr.G.S.Badesha, Director, Bhartiya, Chikitsa Padhati Evam hlomeopathy, near D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.5 Dr.B.L.Agarwal, Secrgtary, ^ GQvemment of Chhattisgarh,,Departmentoftlealth ancf^Famtly Welfaret Mantrataya, D.K.S^.Bhaiwari,Raipur(C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICE215 OF THE CONSTITUIO OF INDIA _l._______ ADDearance; / Dr,N.K.Shukla,SeniorAdvoeatewithShriA.K.Yadav, Goynsel for tbe petitioner. Shri Vivek Verma; Counsel for the respbndents. ORALQRDER SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. 'Heard. Dr.G.S. Mahalwar (petitionenn the Writ Petjtion as also in this Contempf Pefiti^n) has fiied thjs petition fbr initiation of proeeedings of cOntempt against the respondents, as according to him, the respondents have not comptied with the order dated 15,06.2005 passed in W.P.No.2259/2005. This Court I white disposing the aforesaid writ petitipri patesed Jhe following order: ContemDtRetittoitNo.121/2005 &1 "Accordingly, it is directed that if so advised, the petitioner may file a representationalong with a copy of this petjtionand the certified copy ofthis orcier before the competent authority raising his grievances within a period of one month. from today and if -such representation is filed, the competent authority shall dispose of the same within a perio.d of two months from the date of receipt of the representation in accordance with lawon each points raised by the petitioner pertaining to his grievances. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposedof. Consequenfly.MAW.P.No.l 818/2005 & i.A. No.4407/2005 9\so stands disposed of. Gertifiedeopyasperruies." ^l Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after passing ofthe aforesaid order by this Court, the petitioner filed a representation on 04.07.2005, but the same was not disposed of till the filing of the eontempt petition, therefore, this contempt petition was filed. A reply to the Gontempt petition has-^een fited by the respondents, Itis contended in the reply that the representation was not decided in time because of procedural implieatrons, as the petitioner hasworked in various places and his service records were to be observed while deciding his representation. It appears thatafter initiation of the proceedings for deciding th'e representation'on 06.07.2005, the authorities have decided the representation on 30,03.2006. The-fespondents have filed the copy of the oote sheets in this regard. It is also brought to the notice of thisl^ourt that when the authorities of the State found it diffieuit jto decidelthe represeritatjon |in time, they had filed MCC No.44/.2006 for extension oftime. ~ ContemDtPetiftQn N6.121/2005 f^ tl/ Since the respondents have started the proceedings for decislon of the representation wlthin 2 days, after flling of the representation i.e. on 06.07.2005 and they had tried to dispose of the representation in time an'd further that they had filed MCC for extension oftlme and final|y,the representation has been decided in the above manner, it does not appear that they have committed willfuldisobedienceoftheorderftlireetionRassedbythisCourt. Inviewoftheabove,! do not deem it appropriateto pfOceed further in this coritempt petition. The petition isliabletobedismissedandisherebyciismissed. The rule issued stands dischai^ed. c ihyna Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 1.1]l