/ IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR gi@ ww< Contempt Case JC) No. /jo0 /2010 (S.B.) Arisinsout of W.P. (S) No. 1954/2009 PETITIONER ^.-<^ ^•v':^^ ,..^;y^.^ .-•"^ •••'-) ^ cy^ ^'''.^ '..•'•""' '^"" Yeshwant Kumar Rawat, S/o Late Shri Harish Chandra Rawat, aged about 40 years, Assistant Grade-III, Office of:- Superintending Engineer, Shivnath Cricle, Durg, Water Resources Department, Durg (C.G.) R/o Shankar Nagar, Street No. 4, Durg. Tahsil & Distt Durg (C.G.) VERSUS R.B. Shukla, Superintendmg Engineer, Shivnath Circle, Water Resources Department Durg, Distt. Durg(C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 11 OF CONTEMPT PETITION READ WITH 12 OF THE CONTEMPT COURT ACT AND ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. CONTEMNOR 1,! ^ 'STT^T'^T f<rlJ.<=h STT^T 9t)+iic^, ^f^a ^iniii^^ii ^ ^ •3^-^nzn^rq^ ^nT<i^(o, [®i<vti^^< WHC^TT^W6S-S^A10 'fN^ST' ^TT^T'^TT^R:'^?r - SB : Hon'ble Shri MaQmdra^lVlol 24-01-2011 <=t)i^f<n<flti ^i^criT^f^t <F3i^i< '^T ^rf^FT ^TT^T •hlinShrivastava, J. Shri B. P. Singh with Shri S^ By this petition, the petitio| against respondent-contemnor fo| passed in W. P. (S)No. 1954 of 200^ Learned counsel for the pe^ had quashed order dated 31-01| authorities to pass proper orders, '^ meer Kujur, counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent/c|ontemnor, even in the second round. Heard. ler has prayed for action being taken violation of order dated 19-01-2010 [itioner submitted that though this Court 1-2009 reserving liberty to respondent |so advised, in accordance with taw after affording proper opportunity of ^earing to the petitioner, respondent authorities drew proceedings aijid have rejected the representation. Learned counsel for the petition^r submits that though opportunity of hearing was afforded, represent^ition has been rejected ignoring that similarly sjtuated persons are enjo^ing the benefit. On the statement made by| and after perusing the reply filed b^ obtained his reply and after hold learned counsel for the petitioner itself the respondent, it is clear that after the order of this Court, respondent a|uthority issued notice to the petitioner, ng enquiry came to the conciusion by passing speaking and detailed ord^r that the petitioner is not entitted to the relief clajmed. fn the opinion of this Coi|irt, the order of this Court has been complied with in its letter and spirit| the petitioner is aggrieved witli th^ Rule is therefore discharged. However, order now passed by the authorities, it [^•^fe^ 3TI^T'^T f<Tli?h 3?I^T 5^^ich ^f^a Jumpne 4 ^sf ^ww^, ^xi1<44i<o, fa<ni^< 3n^r ^ra? .c^.'c^^d^H0/^ ^..................-.:.....^.<.....^^ , 2^ 'J- ^l^dl 5b*<|cb •M 'lq^T' C^Nf<yi41ri TnTT^Tf"? feT^ <r^'^i< ^T ^rf^W'STI^T will be open for him to take r^course to such legal remedy which may available to him available under|the law. Accordingly, the petition i^ finalty disposed off. Sd/- ^niBdrawox' Shrivastava [^^fe^