SSngls Bench BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ALBJLASPUR _—-c^^^ CONTEMPT PEW-ION- (C) N0. 6-^2- /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^l^- \.^~- ^s^ws". o&.--- ....-- v-"v ;handra Pratap Rajwade, S/o. Amol Say, aged about 42 years, R/o. Village- Katgodi, Tahsil & P.S. Sonhat, District Koria (C.G.) VERSUS 1. 2. 3. Shri A.K. Sinha, Chief Managing Director, South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri Kuldeep Prasad, Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L., Baikunthpur Area, At & Post Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) Shri Rawat Hukum Singh, Personal Manager, S.E.C.L., Baikunthpur Area, Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) ^ CONTEMPT PETITION U/A 215 OF THE CONSTITUTIO.N OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPTS OF COURTS ACT "^ """"'•^ /^\ ^1-^ »ST*(^T^^fl^» ^Sf •^l^l<n<4, ^fta^, 'f^TRT^^ ..€^£'SM.^.^O.:.^^II/ •"^2'60 ^?r TR^ (^Grf5^?) ^I^T'^T'RN^ ^W 3^7 s^^Jch ^nw '^fN 3T^ SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan IShrivastava. J. 17-10-2011 Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for t(ie petitioner. Learned counsel for the petiti petitioner earlier was disposed of vid' by the counsel for the respondents considered afresh by the Coal aut^orities in accordance with the rehabiiitation poiicy havina regard to the letter datejd 29/31-03-2007 written by the Chief General Manager, Baikunthpur Area to the D Biiaspur. in view of the statement s< ^puty Generai Manager (Man Power), SECL, made, it was obsewed that nothlng sur^ives for adjudication at that stage and wi1|iout expressing any opinion on merite of the case, the petition was finaliy dispose statement was made by counse| representation which was filed by th| twoyears. Though, no specific directior^ statement made before the Court bV the representation of the petitione|r authorities, the petition was finally di^ Therefore, the representation | the concemed authorities. in casej this order, the petitioner would be at ^RfeNt^ ^IIH^f 'H* fe^ <M^(T ^T^TH^T^ ner submite that the writ petition filed by the order dated 11/09/09 on the statement given to 5 that the case of the petitioner would be of. Learned counsel for the p^titioner submits that even though solemn for the respondents in the Court, the petitioner has not been decided, even after was issued by the Court, in view of the the counse! for respondents 3, 4 and 5 that shail be considered afresh by the Coai posed of. of the petitioner is required to be decided by no decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner within a period of threje months from the date of receipt of copy of berty to revive this petition. DeepH- —- -.,^ri ^^?i^Ti^r,^^.TT^Tfq—FS/140—2/20r I -1,SO,000. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge