v'^-^-^v G.p'^,,r/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR A^^ CONTEMPTCASE(Civil)NO. ^O /^0^4© PETITIONER, Abdul Sattar, Aged about 64 years, S/o Shri ^ Bairon s^-^K^rw^ \^^'\ ^^•'"^J^vl") Abdul Kadar, R/o Raunak Palace, Baii ^^•r»^^^<.r>^:, ^'"_ RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR 1 Shri H.L. Ratre, Divisonal Forest Officer, Mahasamund, (C.G.) 2. Shri P.C. Daleyee, Secretary Forest Department, State ofChhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawaa Raipur (C.G.) CONTEIS/GPT CASE UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT -ACI_LS72,_.__._..„ €sess^,. ~T l-HC-22 3TT^T^T Pw^ <3n^T 5^^ich ^sf^a ^~^T ^l<41d<4, ^Tll^^lG, f^^lK-iy WH^il 5b^S<^* sn^r ^f^ CGV^'C^, 1 r^ -sy^e-io ^ 260 '^T^f' 3TT^T ^<TT^R ^rf^T cbi<Lif<n<;fli WR^rf ^ 'f^t <f^i^i< ^)" ^rf^HT 377^[ SB : Hon'ble Shri Manlndra Mohan Shirivastava, J. 28-02-2011 Ihfa None for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Tamaskar, counsel for| Heard. This petition has been filed by the| order dated 05-03-2009 passed in Writ| order of recovery was quashed and it w^ respondents. petitioner alleging that though vide Petition (S) No.5413 of 2008, the is held that the amount, which has already been recovered, the petitioner Js entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. T^e said amount has not been paid. In the reply filed on 12-04-2010, lear|ied counsel for the respondents submits that in exercise of liberty ^ranted by this Court, recovery proceedings have been initiated and ste| Rs.28,849/-. Learned counsel for the re definite instructions as to whether, as o beeh paid to the petitioner or not. The on 2009 is very clear that the amount whi| ^ refunded with interest as directed by thi^ till the reply was filed, the recovered petitioner. Though, no time limit was pi] dated 05-03-2009, the respondent No.1 fc)s have been initiated for refund of [spondent submits that he has no h date, the recovered amount has ^jer passed by this Court on 05-03- ph has been recovered has to be Court in the order. It is clear that ^mount was not refunded to the bscribed by the Court in its order 'was obliged to refund the amount within a reasonable time. However, it arfpears that more interest has been shown in exercising the liberty granted |)y the Court rather than refunding \; the amount recovered from the petitionerl [TTI- -..-.-..--. ^.^. !"~3r .Ns {Sw!'v^s-.. ^^> ^. '^ ^L ^. i^spJrfHC-. X. ^<J Hra^ii ^^r^TpTRT^, ^Ti1^4i(o, [^<ni<^< 3TI^?T "q^? QnA^.G^c}^. <P/M^ "^ /200 ^^lch 'fN^ST' STT^f^T ^W 3^T 5t?^i<"+> ^<\ « Tumane It is made clear that the ordei complied with in its true spirit and an invite serious action. The recovered a with interest as ordered by this Court, s retired employee forthwith. In case, the within aperiod of one month from today revive this contempt petition. With the aforesaid observation, tl Certified copy as per rules. chi1LiI<rt<flri 'RprdT ^ ^S if^i^K i:)'3Tf^R3TI^T passed by this Court has to be }/ attempt to distort the same may |mount, if not already repaid along [hould now be paid to the petitioner- 1 amount is not paid to the petitioner [, the petitioner would be at liberty to \\e petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^ m.