HIGH GOURT OFGHMATTISGARH.BILASPUR PETinONER Gontempt Petition (C»No.206 of 2007 Sukumar Roychoudhary, a^d about 60 years, S/o late Shri S.K. Roychoudhary, R/o Lane 3, Shree Kunj, Vinoba Nagar, P.0. & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1 Contemnors Versus Shri A.C. Mahajan, Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Althabad Bank, 2, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata PiN-700001 2. Shri Pankaj Mishra, General Manager (PA), Head Office, 2, Netaji Subhash Road, Koltcata- 700001 i 3. Shri L.N. Choudhary, Dy. General Manager, Allhabad Bank, Bhopal (M.P.) 4. Shri U.S. Divedi, Dy. General Manager, Allhabad Bank, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Shri A.fS.S. Reddi, Chief Manager, Allhabad Bank Bilaspur Branch, P.0. & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Allhabad Bank, 2, Netaji Subhash Bose Road, Kolklata- 700001 (Contemot Petition under Article 215 of the Constiltrtjon of India read wtth Section 12 of the Contemct of Courts Act. 18711 Appearance: Mr. Amrito Das, Advccate for the petitioner. - '"'" Mr. V.C. Ottahwar and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate-for RespqnderTts 3 to 5. O^U.ORDER (10.03.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA.J. Heard. ' Petition- Sukumar Roychoudhary has filed this petitiem for initiation of proceeding of contempt against the respontfents fw the alleged default in compliaice of the order dated 06.05.2002 passed in W.P.NO. 1664/2001. CoatanotfeWsxt(O No. 206 of2007 ThlsCourt whiledisposing oftfteW.P. No. 1Q64/2CB1 passedtie follovwngorder:- "Counsel for the petitioner submUsthat the petltioner has made several requests for payment of his legttimate elaims, taut he has not received anything from the respondents. Having considered the facts and circumstaneesof the case and material on rword, it is directed that petitioner shall make representatlon afresh before the t^pondents no.1 and 2 witiifn two weeks from today and thereafter, respondents No.1 and 2 shatl consider and pass reasoned within a month from the date of recelpt of representation. At this stage, counsel for the petittoner refwed to Annexure P/5 whereby respondente have replied to the representation of the petitioner stating jthat they are looking into the matter and shall revert back the petitioner very soon, but till date nothing has been dohe. Respondents No.1 and 2 shalt also cwislcter thte aspeet within a month from the date of representatiw. It is made clearthat non-compliance of thts ordershall be viewed seriously. With the observation/direction aforesakl, this p^ition is accordingly disposed of." Mr Amrito Das;leamed counsel fn' the petitiener, submits ttat after passingof the order dated 6.5.2002, the petftioner macte representation on 16:5.2002 whichwasreceived by respondente on 20.5.2002 but the samewas not declded in tinie,so the contempt petiUon wasfiled. ''i.^. On 21.9.2007, this Court had Issued notice to respondertsS to 5 ds to why the contempt proceedlngs should not be initiated against them. t find that the repr^entation.dated 16.5.2CXE has already been decided by the respondents on 26.6.2002 andthe same has beerr communicated to the petitioner vkle memo dated 01.07.2002 (Armexure- P/5). Though there is delay of about six days in dectding the representation but that does not appear to be malaficte or intentional which may lead to the conclusion that the respondents had wfllfuBy caused the delay (six days in the matter) In deciding the representatton dated 16.5.20)2 wrtiich was received by them on 20.5.2002. Accordir^ly, ^" IN"* lj; i CoatBmDtPetition/Q No. 206 of2007 there appears to taeasubstential compliance oftheorderdated 6.5.2002 passedbythisCourt. For the reasons statedabove, 1 do notdeem it af^roprtete to proceed further in the matter of contempt against the respondents. The petition, therefore, is llable to be dtemissed and js hereby dismissed. The rule against respondents 3 to 5 dated 21.9.2007 stands discharged. ^l Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge