IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR §g^^Q^^ CONTEMPT CASE (CIVILl N0. %3 /2011 (ARISING OUT^OF AN ORDER DATED 10.12.20i0 PASSED IN W.P.(C) N0. 2479^010^«JWALA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.) -^^^^.^ PETITIONER .^< ^}.'-:-^*!1 ^5^?^ A..--^'5 >•-' ^9 ^^' ^' Jwala Prasad Sharma, S/o Late Sukharu Prasad Sharma, Aged about 71 years, R/o Vivekanand Ward No. 3, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS : 1. Nidhi Chibber, Indian Administrative Services (IAS) presently posted as Secretary Department of General Adminstration, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dr. Rohit Yadav, Indian Administrative Services (IAS), presently posted as Collector - Raipur, the Collectorerate, Raipur (CG) 3. Alar Mel Mangaidi, Indian Administrative Services (IAS), presently posted as Collector - Mahasamund, the Collectorerate, Mahasamund (CG) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ^WITH SECTION 10 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971 -ysEf-^Tzn^izr^.'^hT'T^, f®icni^^< ?..fe,fe.^..v^^s?/^ 3TI^T ^^ (1l^3^?) a^r '^r 'S^ti^F wiw^r^qw \'': ^CTW^fNa^r SB: Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 25'Q7=2Q11 Shri Maneesh Sharma, counse ^Nfd4pf 'WI^f ^ fe^ l1^$R ^•^^^iTi^ for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petiifoner submits that even though this Court passed an order on 10/12/10 in W.P.j(C) No.2479/07 for sending the report to the Union of India within a period of four |A/eeks, tili date, the respondent or any other 'jformed to the petitioner, as to whether the officer of the Government has not irl order of the Court has been compiied Learned counsei for the petit representation on 7/4/2011 (Annexui Mth or not. foner submite that the petitioner submitted re C/3) to the Principai Seoretary, Generai Administration Department, Governm^nt of Chhattisgarh to infornn to the petjtioner as to whether the order of the Courg: has been compiied with and whether the report, as directed by this Court has lj?een sent to the Centrai Government or not. The petitioner has not received any itiformation, which indlcates that the order of the Court, tiil date, has not been compgied with. From the averments made in ttjie petition as weji as from the representation dated 7/4/2011 (Annexure C/3), rt ap^ears that the petitioner has fiied this petition because the respondents have not scj the order of the Court has been coj far informed to the petitioner as to whether rnpiied with or not. The order of the Court required the respondent No.2 to subijnit complete report to the Union of !nctia for consideration and taking appropriatej decision, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks. Therefore, thej respondent No.1 herein is directed to iook into the matter and the petitionershou|d be informed as to whether the order of this Court has been complied with or rjiot. For this purpose, the petitioner may approach the ofTice of respondent no.1. ^^Tt^—FS/140—2/2015—1,50,000: -I 4- XI-HC—78 ^IFI^fT «i*!!<!?» ~?ST ^I'MK'R, ^•al'M4t(o, f®!<"ir'<-fy . ^J--(^o^(C")^o.^33A ^....-....^......T............V.-7..^..-...-^..^^^Q ^T^TT '<T^5' ( ^{^<^) ^IT^T'spf'f^ThF ^T^T ^T^T^iN? 1_• in case, no information is iregard to the compiiance ofthe order Ito revive this petition. The petition is finaliy disposed o| Deepti pNNNI^. I^TT^'^f?n 3??i?r ^-, provi|ded to the petitioner within one month with of this Court, the petstioner would be at iiberty ^i^{<n^ii ^rm^f ^* 'fe^ <P»it^i< ^•3ti?m3T1^T rr. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge