JEN; @ w N JWWB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU CHHATTISGARH CONTEMPT PETITION N0. l ( C) OF 2006 Qmrém 0u+~o$ INTHE ATTER OF:- WRIT PETITION NO.852 OF 2006 BETWEEN Suresh Kumar Uike PETITIONER State of Chhattisgarh and others, a RESPONDENTS (/SURESH KUMAR UIKE SON OF LATE HARISHCHANDRA UIKE AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SUB ENGINEER (Suspended) OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER—IN—CHIEF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RAIPUR, R/o C/o SHRI SHAMBHURAM SINHA, HOUSE No.101, DEVENDRA NAGAR, RAIPUR, DISTRICT: RAIPUR, PETITIONER AND / CHHATTISGARH. VERSUS 1. P. JOY UMMEN, 7 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH, MANTRALAYA, D.K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH. 2. G.S. SOLANKI, ENGINEER-IN—CHIEF, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT QF CHHATTISGARH, RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH. RESPONDENTS/ CONTEMNORS Rf gL' L4) I vz‘ RE CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT w/ OFVCOURTS ACT. 1973. READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T" ’*\’* *“ *' i~ w 77‘ r» i A 77 {€4m Wm ' Mmmsaa i mm m‘am %;33%w3n%!1 109/06 8: 110/06 and g m W W WWW Com. Pet Na. 103/05 Mcc Né_301/06 10—7—2006 Shri Sanj‘ay K; § respondents. Shri Pmshom‘ Mishm‘ Sm‘re/appiicanf. Heard. ‘ er sha“ dispose of Can‘rempf Pe I'hon Nas & 110/ This common or 108/2006 109/2006 302/2006 & 303/2006 IT is pointed ouf ?rhaf whi fhe peTifioners/responijen‘rs Chha‘r‘hsgarh and 'Hqe amhomfle fhe represenmtion of Him pe‘h from The dafe of produc‘hon of pomTed om‘ flout m compliance of peflTloners submmed @helr- rep au‘fhori‘ries, bu‘i‘ The samge have no If is poim‘ed oqif Tho? i exfension of fime in deciding ‘ ‘herein on The ground ‘H’ia'i‘ due 1‘ num. .mm mwm.mw WMW 302/06 8: 303/06 E caunsal ”For The pg‘rifioners/ Agrawdll, E Midi. Advoca‘re General for ‘rhe ~4nwwmwwmw~e h 7006 and 'M.C.C. NOSE 01/2006 disposmg of wrn‘ pe‘h‘hoiis flied by Is Cour-T direcfed Theism‘re of concerned f0 consider iznd dealde t oner- wn‘hm a period of Six weeks fhe represenfa‘hon If Is further ‘rhe order passed bv This Court The sen‘l'ahons before The :concerned i been decided fiii dafe. i i ‘ Sm‘re has also fiiedi' MCC for i represenfafion of Theipe‘l'ifioner i bono fide reasons, The §nme could i300 f” m' W W l r e 6 nm‘ be deaded wn-hm flag sfxpulmed period If Is s‘mfed fhaf fhere Is na main flde The represen‘rafioi-q oughf ”the ends of Jus'hce ‘hme Is granTeJi. Le‘r The represen‘ra'hon WW be demded hy +he @mpe‘fen‘f a i o have been decided H§wever m i g authomy wn‘hm four weeks fron' The du‘re of receipT/pr-oduchon of The copy of This order : In fha‘r View of The maffer- 109/200é & 110/2006 and M § Confemp‘r Pe‘l'i‘l'ion Nos. 1:08/2006, F c. Nos.3Q1/2oos, 302/2006 & 303/2006 sfand d:sposec! of uf THS s‘rage. Copy of This oréer‘be l 108/2006‘ 109/2006 §& 302/2006&303/2006. § ‘ ¢.Q. )iaced in Contempt Pefiij‘ion Nos. 110/;006- and Mac Nosm/aooe, 2 § \‘A~ i ‘ Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge (@W) wx‘ i