IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ContemDt Case fc^ No. /2>8^ /2010 ^ Petitioner ^ ^ ^rf©^®^R ^'?i^5ly/" '•' \^^ ^s^ ?"'^'^' ^% '^y y Sudhram Markam, Aged about 43 years, S/0 Shri D.R. Markam, working as Upper Division Teacher, Balakpur Middle School,Vishrampuri, r/o village and post Vishrampuri, Tahsil-Baderajpur, District- Bastar(C.G.) Versus Contemnor/ Respondent Nand Kumar Secretary Department of School Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G-) ^ CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21/07/2009 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKAR IN WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 3469/2009 ^ :-HC-22 '3TT^I^T f^ri^'^n^T sti^ich <i[ia 6 Tumane "^St ^WM^, ^Tll^^Ko, l^^ll^y ^n^r x?=ra? iSs^ •C^^c^^S/7^\ O HWWl $h^8cb •f^ST' 200 37T^T ^RTT3:R ^f^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shri 25-04-2011 Shri Saif Khan, counsel for the petit Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, counsel for Heard. This petition has been filed by the |: order dated 21-07-2009 passed by this Co by which, respondent was directed to decic Learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has been decided by the res after long time, when contempt petition representation of the petitioner has be reasons. On the other hand, learned couns< receipt of representation of the petitioner, examination of District Education Officer c 2009 (Annexure R-1) of the District finally decided vide order dated 12-04-2( submits that though there is some delay delay wasnot intentional and the sarr functioning. Learned counsel further sul respondent tenders unconditional apology. Taking into consideration the subm parties as also taking into consideration has been finally decided, though betatedly, the respondent, rule is discharged. Accordingly, the contempt petition ii cbl^f<n4lt1 TTTR^rf"? "ft^ <f^1<^l< i73rf^H3TT^T astava, J. loner. respondent. fetitioner alleging willful disobedience of iprt in Writ Petition (S) No.3469 of2009, je the representation ofthe petitioner. submits that though representation of [pondent No.1, but the same was done Was filed. He further submits that the ^n rejected without assigning proper |1 for the respondent submits that after |the case of the petitioner was sent for |nd after receipt of memo dated 05-09- Edu|3ation Officer, the representation was p10 (Annexure R-2). Learned counsel |in compliance of the Court order, the le^te occurred due to administrative |)mits that for the delay caused, the ]ission made by learned counsel for the t^at the representation of the petitioner |and unconditional apology tendered by ^ finally disposed off. M—Xshrivastava [Tit^'^fe^