IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^^ Contempt Case No. ^\\ /2010 (S.B.) ArisingoutofW.P. (S) No. 1661 /2009 PETITIONER/ APPLICANT .^•K) ^~>y. ..-/ ^y -^^ ^.•-^ /\,\/s° Brijraj Singh, S/o Late Kalika Singh, aged about 63 years, Retired Inspector of Department, R/o Jayanti Nagar, Street No. 3, Near Karmachari Nagar Sikola Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. Shri Jayant Thorat, The then Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, Now posted at Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Shri Rahul Sharma, Superintendent of Police Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONTEMFT OF COURT ACT 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. CONTEMNORS/ RESPQNDENTS HC-22 3?n^T^T Rrii<=h sn^r 9^^i<=h ^f^a '^ET ^li<4ld<4, ^Ti1^<i<o. [^<ni^y 31 ^W^\ $b*4icb 3Ti^?r 'q^ra? ^..C^..c.^.&^l '^^y' ^ni^r ^<TT8[R ^tin SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindral 1.02.2011 Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Ms. Tripti Dewangai^ Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, coun^ cojun$el This Court vide orderl W.P. (S)No. 1661/09 had allowed recovery was quashed. It wa(s has been recovered, the pet| with interest @ 6 % per annilm. It is submitted that passed by this Court, amo|uint petitioner on 26.2.2010 und^ as interest is concerned, th|e after some time and not alonb Learned counsel for compliance of the order Rs.43,513/- was refunded amount of interest of Rs.7,^ also been paid and deposite<|l 4.1.2001 vide cheque No. respondent submits that chl<4td4lT1 ^I^Qlf'^fe^t iF^^K '^'3?rf^FT3T^T Mohan Shrivastava, J. for the petitioner. Advocate appears on behalf of 1 for respondent No.2. dated 30th March, 2009 passed in the petition and the order of further ordered that if the amount tioner is entitled to the said amount :hough in compliance of the order recovered was refunded to the ?r a cheque of Rs.43,513/-, in so far |e same though has been paid, but with the refunded amount. tespondent No.2 submitted that in |>assed by this Court, amount of 1:0 the petitioner and thereafter the \Q2/- as ordered by this Court has in the account of the petitioner on .069744. Learned counsel for the tho|ugh there has been some delay, the ['Tft^ SR^^l y ^I-HC-22 3Ti^T^T i^-lich ^T^ 5t)^ich ^f^a Praveen k ^oci ^ii^Kn^ , ^Tlly^l^, fadl^ll< ^(p' ^J^ xra-^ HW^{{ ^^^—'———"^f^ 200 "^^ST' 31T^?r ^Frff^ ^rftTT '?- same is not intentional butl had any intention to disobey] chl^<n<fll. TTTR^ff ^ f^^l <F31^K IT ^rf^FT ^TT^T bonafide and the respondent never the order passed by this Court. Taking into consideratijon the submissions made by learned counsel for the par|:ies, the affidavit filed by respondent/contemnor, in tj|ie opinion of this Court, it does not appear to be a case of willjful disobedience. Though there has been some delay in paymer has already been paid unconditional apology. In this view of the matt |t of interest part, now that amount |and respondents have tendered pr, the rule is discharged. Consequently, the peti1|ion is finally disposed of. Sd/- ManmdraMohanShrivastava Judge [^^&