IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT_QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE fC) NO.SZQ/ 2011 PETITIONER /: (^ ^' Singto Bellc1^ Gajendra.Lal Tandan, S/o. Shri Tameskar Tandan, '.^ Aged about 27.years' ^ L'' ^"^i"~..^\ R/o. Gram Jodhpur, ^ ^^ ^./ ' Post-Barampur, Tahsil - Lormi, ^"yfl^^ff) DistriGt-Bilaspur (CG) <{^^-^ ^ " Versus . O^ESPONDEN'TS A 1. Thakur Ram Singh, Collector, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. B..K. Rajput, Assistant . Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, District—Bilaspur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE'215_OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ^ -+- + %;, ??.?-' sSSh 'i j:A"'!^ ^ t S X^ XJ-HC—78 ss^iv R;-ii+ 'S^t •^W\v\ii, 'ST^WI'C, P^v\wy. ^a^..c?.^^:^^i HWW ^,^|t(,~"- •• " -^- f-^200 3^T.Tl^? ('^3^;) Tsnwdfsg 3ii^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manlndra Moliar 14-0°-2011 Shri N. K. Chatterji, counsel fc|r the petitioner/s. l-1eard. Learned counsel for the f| petitioner/s had filed writ petition fcji <=h1^[d4l1'1 WT^f^ tt1E^ <^t^R "^ sffrPT ^i^l Shnvastava, J. ietitioner/s submits that earlier the efore this Court aggrieved by notice dated 06-04-2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Assistant Commissioner. In the aforesaid writ petition, staterpent was made by the learned State counsel that the notice dated 06-04-J2011 is only a tentative opinion of the authority and the fact that the petitiojier/s have been given a notice shows that no final decision in the matter h^s been taken and the same would be onlyafter the receipt of reply. Consicjering the aforesaid statement, the writ petition was finally disposed off otjiserving that the show cause notice shows tentative opinion and not ^ respondents shall duly consider the appropriate enquiry before coming to| of the petitioner/s. It is submitted th^ the petitioner/s on 13-07-2011, till d| also submitted that in the spirit of thi The order passed by this Coijirt petition was disposed off observing this Court agajnst the notice -ctat^c submissi.on made by learned Statq final decision and further that the reply filed by the petitioner/s and hold any conclusion adverse to the interest ;t though reply has been submitted by ?te, no decision has been taken.It is ^ order of the Court, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to tal^e decision in the matter expeditiously, but decision has not been taken, whith amounts to willful disobedience. on 04-07-2011 shows that the writ that the petitioner/s have approached ?d 06-04-2011 and in view of the counsel. It is not the case of the XI-HC—78 sii^r v. fc;-fi+ TT^TT 3ff^?T ^HN^ ^ '3^ •*ll-4l(y1-4, QTll<H';<», fqyiy^< Hi*tcn *Hi«f» WI. 200 sn^r'q'ra' (ljcif^°<<^) wnwaftasii^r --^-- petitioner/s. that without considcrin^ been passed. The matter has not date. Moreover, the notice dated 06 Commissioner, and it is found that tl the respondent-Collector with a copy| ^)'ti[<n<ili tTPT^ tf 'f^st' <^t'^.i< ^3Tfi|lT3I!^T thc rcply, cortQin ordors havc now been decided by the respondents till -04-2011 was issued by the Assistant ie petitioner/s have submitted reply to to the Assistant Commissioner. In that view of the matter, 1 am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents. , Accordingly, the petition is distnissed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^