0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) SingJB BescV CONTEMPT CASE {CTVIL} N0. 3 z7 OF 2011 (Single Bench Conteinpt) COMPLAINANT : (Petitioner) 1 ^-ftr^ '^ l/<^-''" ..^- ...."". ^" ..^5'1 ..--"a ^' •^^ y^"^,^''' ''''. ^^" ^ay . .-3 SMT. P. SftESHSAI RAO .aged about 59 years, W/o Shri Subbarao DRAFTS MAN Municipal Corporation Raipur, (C.G.) VERSUS o CONTEMNERS (Respondents) <^^ &' ^^^. 1. SHRJLRAJESH ^UKUMARJTOPPO Comniissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur (C.G.) 2. CHAIRMAN Standing Committee Municipal Corporation Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3^SW K.-WV 'S^l 3n^i^+ii<ft 3~5[ •<INI(n<<, aTll''-f'l6, f^MI'My ...^^..•.^n. "^T, 200 b 311^1-<Ttq7(>yi-l»«^T) TOiiw^te aii^i SB: Hon'ble Shri Manlndra IBohiin Shrivastava^A <<i|'i4l<vl<^11 ^T^f^f fe%t iFait^K ^aiRnsn^i 15.09-2011 Shri V.G.Tamaskar, cou(isel for the petitioner. Heard. Learned counsel for th^ petitioner submits that on 8/10/10, the wrlt petition filed by the petiti^ner was flnally disposed off directlng the respondent to complete the|exercise within a reasonable time and without undue delay, lookingj to the fact that the petltioner has been litigating since 1991. ! Learned counsei for | the petltioner submits that various correspondence are being n]iade between the Government and the <n memo dated 10/08/2011 of the State h has been taken till date. He further time limit has been fixed, the matter Is In a reasonable time and almost eleven Corporation as reflected frol Government, but no decisiol submits that even though, n<j required to be decided withi| months have elapsed since t^ From the memo datedt s order was passed by this Court. 10/08/2011 of the State Government, it appears that the State Gover(iment has directed the Commissioner to send a report, in respons|e to memo dated 22/07/2011 of the Commissioner. This Court Ijias repeatedly observed in number of cases that even though no compliance of the order of specific time limit has been fixed, the the Court is to be ensured within a reasonable time. Consldering the totality|of circumstances and nature of exercise L „-dlrected by this Court to be Mndertaken by the respondent authorities, SflH'fli; .'a'ft II gSTCi^IT-T'. <•'"•' "!S;I40—2/2011—1,50,000.''' !i- ./-/ ? r -<s?^fe.^^ '^ ^ST ^i^ici<i, ®xi|y<|(o,[c|<»iiy^< Cy^- <^>^ ^^ • S^) 1/ sn^n^q? (ijc|[^«j<^j 3tl^? VI f<;-fi<B ^iIT 3H^?T sb^tqi Deepti ••_*'• t^iiWfliTO an^ff -5 tll<ll<'l<i)l IWcfl 4 ^S^S <Fq<<;!< ^3J!OT31I^T instead of issuing notice to t|ie respondents, 1 deem it expedlent to observe that if no decision isi from the date of receipt of cop^ taken within a period of three months f of this order, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive this contempt |]>etition. With the aforesaid obseijvations, the petition is finally dispaised off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^TC;^T ^^ gs"n^?, u^-' t'^ff..-* s?i 40—2/2011—1,50,000. ^' ^. 1