^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH.BILASPUR GONTEMPT CASE (C V N0.28 OF 2010 PETiTIONER Raju Babu Badhel, S/o Shri Megha Ramcharan Badhei, Aged about 29 years, R/o Kumharpara, Karbala, Bilaspur, 'Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Mr. Mukesh Banshal, S/o Shrinot known, Aged about 40 years, Posted as Commissjoner, Muhicipal Corporation Bilaspur, !n the office of Munjdpal Corporation Bilaspur, Dlstrict Bitaspur (CG) 2 Mr.O.P.Tiwari, S/oShrinotknown, Agedabout40years, Posted in the mean time as a ActingCommJssioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur In the office of MuRicipal Corporation Bifaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTSCLE 215 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Counse! forthe petitioner. ORALORDER (04.02.2010) SUNILKUIVIARSINHA.J. Heard. L^ Petitioner-Raja Babu Badhei has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for the aiieged default committed by them In compiiance ofthe order dated 25th of June 2009 passed in W.P.(S) No.2966 of2009. CONTEIVIPT CASE (C ) N0.28 OF 2010 Q. b ~\ ' \ This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by passing the foliowing order on 25 of June 2009: "1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner does not want td contest the petition on merits. However, the petitioner prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to decide his pending representations, as expeditiously as possible. 2. Smt. Siddique, learned counset appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3 submits that if the representations dated 06.07.2005 and 05.09.2008 (Annexure P/2 co!ly.), the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with iaw on its own merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. In view of the foregoing, according to iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothlng remains for adjudication. 4. Consequently, the petitlon stands disposed of." Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of the aforesaid order was presented before the respondents on 02.07.2009, but they decided the repr^esentations of the petitioner on 27.10.2009, therefore, there is delay in disposa! of the representations, which amounts to contempt. A perusa! of the order passed by this Court would show that on the first date of hearing, the Counsei appearing for respondents 2 & 3 (in the writ petition) submitted before the Court that if the representations have not been decided, the p- CONTEMPTCASE(CIN0.280F2010 ^.< Q; shyna same shall be considered and decided withina period offour weeks. Thus, ! find that therewas nospecific direction by this Courtto the respondents to dispose of the representations within the stipulated period, however, it was a mere submission made by the counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 (in the writ petition) on advance copy in a bonafide manner. In thefacts and circumstances of the case, 1 do not deem jt appropriate to proceed in contempt against the respondents for some delay indisposal ofthe representations. The petitioh has no merit andthe same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge