y HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASRUR Contempt Case (Civil)No. 197 of 2009 PETITIONER Applicant RESPONDENTS Contemnors R.K. Naidu, S/o Shri Krishna Swami . Naidu, aged about 51 years, By Occupation, Cooperative InspectQr, Posted at Head Office, District Raipur (CG) R/o Bajaj Colony, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tah. & District- Raipur (CG) Versus Durgesh Mishra, Secretary, Co-operative Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (CG) Durgesh Mishra; Registrar, Co-operative Society, Vivekanand Complex, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONUNDERARTICLE215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAREAD WITH SECTION 12 OF THE GONTEMT OF COURTS ACT. 1971 ADDearance: Mr. Prakash Tiwari &Smt. V. Shradha Rao, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. R.N. Mukherjee, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (21.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. Petitioner, R.K. Naidu, has filed thispetitionfor initiation of proceedings of contempt against respondents 1 & 2 for the alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 15.1.2009 passedinW.P.(S) No. 192/2009. This Court while disposing of W.P.(S) 192/2009 passedthe following order:- "Inview of above submissions of learned counsel forthe parties, the instant petition is disposed 6f withliberty tp the petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent No.2 for redressal of his grievances raised in this petition. On such representation being made,.the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same on its own merits in accordancewith law within a further peribd of four weeks from the date ofreceiptoftherepresentation". . ' ' Mr. R.N. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that fhe re'ply on behalfpf the respondents has been filed. The respondents have ^--. :V»tS Contempt Case ('Civil') No. 197 of 2009 decided the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 26 March, 2009, and the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Senior Co-operative Inspector in the pay-scale of 5500-175-9000 w.e.f. 22.4.2008. A copy of the order dated 26.3.2009 is filed as, Annexure-R/1. Learned counsel further submits that the representation ought to have been disposed of within 4 weeks, but there is some delay in disposal of the representation which has occurred on account of time consumed in getting various official records. In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, when the representation has already been disposed of vide order dated 26.3.2009 and the delay in deciding the representation is duly explained, 1 am not inclined to proceed further in the matter for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents. In light ofthe above facts, the petition is finally disposedof. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ r: te x s'.