IHt MUN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATRTIACDIl R fC.G.l Contempt Case fCivill No. 72011 PETITIONER: ^' ^^v 3?--"\o'^ Sinste y^' Ku. Divya Gautam Aged about 25 years D/o Shri S. P. Gautam R/o- Aganpur, Chitrakot Road, In front of Pollution Control Board, P.0. Dharampura, Jagadalpur District-. Bastar (C.G.) tlESPONDENT: VERSUS 1) tONTEMNOR L.K. Mishra Aged about 55 years S/o Not known to the applicant Presently posted as Joint Director & Member, High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, State of Chhattisgarh, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Premises Raipur (C.G.) 8'ETITION UNDER SECTIQN 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF EOURTS ACT READ WITH _ARTICLE 215 OF THE tONSTITUTION OF INDIA :H\f 'yf1.' \ l(i ff^ i^^^^ "•^sss HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri ManjndraMohan^hrivastayaiJ, Petitioner Respondent Contemnor Contempt Case (Civill No.96 of 2011 Ku. Divya Gautam Versus L. K. Mishra Petition under Section 1f2 of the Contempt oi Courts Act readwith ArtJcleJZIS oUhe^ConstitutLorLofindJa Present:- Shri Sandeep Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10-10-2011) Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 27-07-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C)No.477 of 2010, by which, the writ petition was disposed off, in view of the statement made by the counsel appearing for the State that if application of the petitioner is pending consideration, the same would be considered and decided in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. It. is submitted that order of the Court bind the authorities by the yndertaking given by the State counsel, and therefore, the pending application of the petitioner ought to have been decided within a period of four weeks. The petitioner had submitted a copy of the order along with the representation before the Joint Director and the Member of the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 19-08- 2010, which was followed by another application/reminder dated 26-10-2010, but, y no decision was taken in the matter within the stipulated period of four weeks and by not deciding the-petitioner's application, the respondent, who was responsible -s. ..>" . _^_- vf for taking decision, committed willful disobediencs of the order passed by this" Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent referring to the averments made in the reply on affidavit submits that there was no intention to flout the order of the Court. He submits that even before the order was passed by this Court, a tetter was issued to the petitioner on 16-12-2009, requiring her to submit relevant documents, so that the caste certificate of the petitioner could be verified. After the order was passed by this Court and copy of which, was received in the office, a letterwas issued on 10-08-2010, 16-09-2010 and 18-03- 2011 to the petitioner towards the progress of the case of the petitioner and compliance of the order of the Court in its letter and spirit. It is further submitted that when the necessary documents as demanded from the petitioner could not be furnished, the Vigilance Department was requested to submit report on certain aspects of the matter, which is mandatory requirement in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kuman' Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondent had also moved an application for extension of time, considering that the exercise required some more time to be consumed and the matter could not be decided within the time stipulated on the basis of an undertaking given before the Court. The said application was later on dismissed by the Court. After collecting various details and upon receipf of vigilance report, finatly, an orde'r was passed on 20-09-2011 (Annexure D-2), by which, case of the petitioner has been decided. Learned cbunsel for the respondent submitted that though, there has been delay in compliance of the order of the Court, but the .respbndent had no intention to disobey or flout the order of the Court and in the very nature of the enquiry required to be made in the matter of verification of caste status, time was consufried,which is beyond the control ofthe respondent. i .•3 s li^ _^ .. .,. 2> He submits unconditional apology for the delay, which has been caused in taking finaldecision in the case ofthe petitioner. 5. From the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, 1 find that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was finally disposed off relying upon the undertaking given by the State counsel that the application of the petitioner, if pending consideration, the same would be considered and decided within a period of four weeks. In the reply and also in detail submission before the Court, it has been submitted that nature of exercise required to be undertaken to verify the caste status is a lengthy one and several letters in this regard were issued to the petitioner to submit relevant documents and information in proof of her caste and vigilance report was also obtained from the Vigilance Department. The respondent had also moved an application for extension of time, though the same was rejected. Now, the final order having been passed on 20-09-2011, in the opinion of this Court, though there has been delay in compliance of the order of the Court, 1 am unable to hold that it was an act of willful disobedience warranting action against the respondent. 6. The delay, which has been caused in complying with the order of the Court,.in the circumstances stated above, deserves to be condoned. It is however observed that the al] attempts are required to be made to comply with the order of •the Court in its letter and spirit. Whenever time bound direction is given by the Court to take any steps or pass any order, all attempts are made to ensure that the brder of the Court not only complied with, but also complied with in the time stipulated. |f any genuine difficulty or existence of a situation beyond control is there, it must be brought to the ndfice of the Court by moving an application and praying for extension of time. Under no circumstance, the majesty of law can be allowed to be violated. Though belatedly, in the present case, an application for extension of time was moved for compliance of the Court order. The said application was, howeve'r, rejected. &»"- -^"^t^uffdi.Ss-^ "-T—— ^ 7. In the totality of the circumstances, 1 am not inclined to proceed furt(ier in the matter. Considering that the final order has now been passed in the case of the petitioner, rule is discharged. The petitioner, however, would be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to her under the law, if she feels aggrieved by order dated 20-09-2011. 8. Accordingly, the petition is finally disposed off. ? Sdf- * Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumahe \; ^ •^^r;-; "Ki,