V. BEFORE THE HON'BL HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR ?;;o"'~ -, CONTEMPT pglCTI^ N0..'3^,.<2./2011 Petitioner: <^c .<•• ^^^^ 7 .-<<sf>'r ..^" ^^;'' ^^••""^37 o' Respondent/Contemnor Hemraj Vaishya S/o Shri Madhav Vaishya, Aged about 58 years, Presently working as Dy. Collectgor; Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG State. Versus Shri. M.K. Raut, Secretary (Revenue) GOV. of CG DKS Bhawan, Raipur. CG State. PETITION UNDER SECTION J_l SE 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 _QF THE CONSTITUTQN OF INDIA. a- c sn^fWTCaw WII 3tlt?I ailNi c^ 'ys! '<ii*ii<a<l, aflly'Ko, fs|<rliy^< ..(3^..^..fc.)...'±G_3^/^ •TFI,200 Sf^l T[5W (iyf-1't'^t) TOnw^ftg aii^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohah Shrivastava. j, 10.10.2011 Shri K.R. Nair, counsei for th^ petitioner. Learned counsei for the petif Court on 30/06/2010 in W.P.f'S) No.l Earlier, a contempt petition f tll<lt?I<i!l IIHCli'^fe'7! ^fetgl!. ^sifaHCT^? [ioner submits that the direction issued by this T98/05 has not been complied with. was filed by the petitioner in which mis Court observed that though special mes^enger was sent for coiiecting reievant records for consideration of the case of the petitioner, the relevant records were not received from the State of Madhya pradesh and rurther that the respondents have stated in their repiy that they are documents and attempts are being Considering the aforesaid submis] making best or their endeavor to get those |made to pass necessary orders at the earii^t. sions, this Court had nnalty disposed off the petition observing that the resp<>ndents shali make ali endeavors to pass necessary orders regarding prom<^ion of the petitioner as directed by this Court earller. Learned counsel for the pe' passed in the contempt petition oni itioner submitted that the aforesaid order was 31/1/2011 and even after iapse of aimost nine months, till date no orders have be^n passed. From the petition, which ha^ now been fiied before ihis Court, there is no specific 'averment as to whether State of Madhya Pradesh or not. in order to comDiv with the feievant records hav®been received from the forder of the Court, the State or Chhattisgarh is promotion and for that purpose, rei 31/1/2011 in Contempt Case required to take necessary steps fjsr consideration of the case of the petitioner for svam records are necessary. in the order dated (C) No.255/10, this Court considered the submissions that the attempts h^ve been made to requisition original records i'vreii.vT.TW-i—i-y.iw— 2/2ui 1—1,50,000. •^: /// 3II^I'wfiF)W tRTSII^ stitijch Despit ~3^f -*liq|(vl<M, ®Tl1<1<|6, [s<iv)ly^< h Aa e.(<£)t^°'i2)^" •W[,20Ci 3n^?r'(R^ ('yt^'KiiT) TOIWR ^ElfTO 311^1 s- records have been received from nothing has been done by the res| •tii<ilcf<il-fi(iicil''?fet'£iTfe$i( ^r siRm sii^?! pertaining to DPC heid in the yea^ 1993 but the relevant records have not been sent by the State of Madhya Prade^h. In the absence of there beinjg any averment in the contempt petition that the the State of Madhva Pradesh and even men [>ondent, i am not inclined to issue notice to the respondent at this stage. It appears that the respondjent authority is finding it difficuit to compiy with the order of the Court due to non-availabitity of relevant records which is iying with the State of Madhva Pradesh. F^eminders have aiso been sent to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The concerned are in possession of the retevant jauthorities in the State of Madhya Pradesh who 1-ecords are under obiigation to send the entire records to the State of Chhattisgarh so that the respondent may proceed to comply with the order ofthe Court bv consf shall prefer a representation to| authority ofthe State of Madhya Pfradesh aiong with the copy ofthis order and the order passed eariier informing th not sent bv the concemed authoritt does not pass appropriate orders] receipt of the records from the Sta) liberty to approach this Court agaf compiiance ofthe order ofthis Coilirt. With the aforesaid observal off. idering the case of ttie petitioner. The petitioner the competent authority and the concerned m that in the absence of reievant records, the order of the Court couid not be ct>mptied with. In case.the relevant records are of the State of Madhya Pradesh within a period of one month from the date of rejceipt of copy of this order or if the respondem within a period of two months from the date of e of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner wouid be at nst those orficers who are responsibie for non- ^y'i- ^'ETTo'iS, ^•ii'fH^I^—T'IS.'I40—2/2U' •1,50,000. fons uiitections^ttie^petitlon is finally disposed Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge