tS&H"C;6URT OF CHHATnSG^BH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) Contempt Case (0 No. l% /2011. (Arising out ofprder dated 10.01.11 passed in writ petition (S) No. 72/2011 by Hon'ble High Gourt.) PETITIONER: ? ^5-1 f 1 *0»< BaWl»CBftBWflpi Pm«nte, >"Sh^ *"»»»wiaa,ait^,fi-,MftWfiftM»ffij, "'•"""——' -Tm'rtiiwuiUl ]^7=77 Respondent: (Contemnbr): Dr.Arvind Kumar Gour, son of Late P.S.Gaur, aged about 42 years, working as Assistant Professor, Commerce, Rajeev Gandhi Govt. Post Graduate College, Ambikapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh.. Versus Shri C.K-Khetan, Commissioner Higher Education Department, Sanchanalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^ rf- K iftrtpmW-;!..!,;:,:,^.,^,^^ CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTJON OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CQNTEMPT OFCOUKTS ACT. /^^ V.0®^. ^sr •<<I^K'!<<, »fliy'i<o,'fadiy>j,< ..C.''.^:.C.^f-..^J.l^( 3!i^i'^rRiTT "^S?T 3iT^1- ^"^•^ 'FSnwsftfa^; ^Nwfl^ iiroff ^'re^r Tf^?K ^sifmSTr^?! Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.I 1.9.2011 Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsell J for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kacbhawaha, dounsel for tlie respondent. Heard on admission. This petition has been jiled by the petitioner afleging wiUful disobedience of the order dat^d 10th January; 2011 passed by fhis CourtinW.P. (S) No.72/2011.) Leamed counsel for the^ petitioner submitted that vide order dated 10t11 January, 2011, th^ respondent was directed to consider representation and take decis fhe date of receipt of copy of ^on within a period of 4 monttis from jiie order. He submits that Ji'rstt'y, the respondent did not take decis^on in the matter wifhin the stipulated period and secondly, fhe deci; On the ofher hand, Ij necessaiy detaUs were coUec1( official correspondences. How{ ion which has now been taken in fhe matter vide order dated 17.6.2pl 1 is whoUy fllegal and fhe aufhority has rejected the claim. of the ^etitioner wifhout due considera.tion of fhe Circulars dated 11.10.1939 and 9.11.1999. :arned counsel tbr the respondeat subiaits ttaat after fhe or(|er of fh.e Court was received, the >d and soine tim.e was consumed ia ;ver, there was no intentioii to flout •fhe order of fhe Court and ^U attem.pts were made to take final decision withm. fhe stipulated tiine, but, for the reason atbre stated, /-/ XI-HC—78 •CT^^ri^'Ni' 7IEt-31T^i'*4i+ Praveen 's^ '^nw<(, 'SWOTS, f^Tray vo gTT^l TT^B- (TTafc^q) TOnwslt'i sii^r _^. +l<f??l<i1-1 •RTq?R •if fS^t TfSrRK ^ StfHIT 3^ it could not be completed, but, later on.the niatter has been duly considered. He further submitjs tbat for fhe delay which has been caused m. deciduig the matter, which was unintentional, apolog^r is prayed for. Taking into consideration fhe submission made by learned counsel for the parties, I findi that though fhere is some delay ia passing fhe order in complianj stated in the reply, I am. satisip.ed that the delay was bona fide and uniatentional not to Qout fhe olrder of the Coiirt After going fhrough the order dated 17.6.2011, I ^nd fhat for certain reasons- recorded fherein, the claim of the consideration. If fhe petitioner is aggrii hiin to assafl fhe legalitv constituted proceedings. Ho circumstances of fhe case, I the niatter. petitioner has been rejected after aAd The rule is therefore disctiarged. The petition is accordiag :e, for fhe reasons which have been ^ved by fhe said order, it is open for validly of the sam.e in properly svever, in fhe present facts and not incliaed to proceed further in. Eim y finaUy disposed qf^ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^^^^^^S^^^s^SsS^^S-'^y:: •^^^'^teS.^^ii^fgSiir^^^'?^'^