IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC/G CONTEMPT CASE 10 N0. 1?(C _ /2011 (Arising out oforder dated 02-Q8-2010 passed in W.P. fCl No. 25^/2010) PETITIONER Hula Ram Verma S/o. Shri Lakhan lal ^C?y ^ Verma Aged about 50 years R/o. ,.^~.^' ^ Village- Kurmi-Gondra, Tahsil: Patan, ^<y//\^ Dist: Durg (CG)• ^ ^€"^ ^5-""^ CONTEMNOR VERSUS P. Tirkey Sub-Divisional Offlcer (Revenue) Patan, Dist.: Durg (CG). •^" CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12_OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 y ;>^-^ 1% ""^' J L\'A ^•^, mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI MANIKDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. Contempt Case (Cl No.86 of 2011 PBTITIONER RESPONDBNT Conteninor Hula Ram Verma Versus P. Tykey Contempt Petition under Article 215 ofthe Constitution of India r/w Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 Appearance: Shri N. Naha Roy, counsel for fhe petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 9.3.2011) ^•^. Heard on adraission. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted fhat vide order dated 2nd August, 2010 passed by this Coi.u-t in W.P. (C) No.2552/10, direction was given to the Election Tribunal to consider and decide the case afresh, in aecordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from fhe date of receipt o&copy of this order. He submitted that even fhough the order of fhis Court was brought to the notice of the authority on 13.8.2010, the matter has still remained pendin^ without decigion pn one pretext or fhe order. Leamed counsel for ^ "'••'^- '' .» '•<» '% ..-"-^ i ^••^-.^'^'"":~Wi ^ . ^^y ••S",-,ff'f -^. L .^..»«»-^.»CL aufhonty of this Court as fhe matter has not been decided so far. 3. Frora the various order-sheets which have been placed on record, it is foiind that at one point of time, fhe petitioner had applled for transfer of the case to some ofher authority and fhat matter remained pending with the Collector, who decided the application for transfer vide his order dated 21.10.2010. Even fhough issues have been framed on 22.11.2010, on the date flxed for recordtng evidence on 14.12.2010, fhe application for amendment was moved, which was rejected on 17th January, 2011, but on fhat date, fhe retumed candidate again moved an application for transfer of the case. 4. From fhe order sheets which have been placed on record and considering that tfae Sub Divisional Ofiicer (R) could not proceed on account of a fresh application for transfer of case and fhat the matter has remained pending with the CoUector, at present, I am not inclmed to issue notice to respondent-S.D.O. 5. It appears that on account of some appllcation for transfer the easp, fhe Sub Divisional Officer (R) has stayed proceedmgs. Once an_ order was passed by this Court for deciding fhe matter wifhin stipulated period, tfae Sub Divisional Officer has to decide the matter notwifhstanding any such application, with utmost \ expediency. y /-"• .A'^%-' Praveen -3- 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted Uberty to revive this petition after one month. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is fmally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge .^