HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CONTEMFT CASE (Ci No.59 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENT ^ Ku. Basanti Kaivarth, D/o LateShri Johan t.al Kaivarth, Aged aboyt22 years, R/o Gram Udayband, Post Pisaud, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Versus Dinesh Shrivastava, S/o Late R.P. Shrivastava, Managing Djrector, C.G. State Cooperative MarReting Federayen Ltd.,Raipur(CG) CONTEMPT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTn-UTION OF INDIA Appearance: , Mr. Adil Minhaz, Counsel for the petittoner. 1 Mr. ShailendraShukla, Counsel for ther^pondent. ^- .03.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, Heard. Petitioner -Ku. Basanti Kaivarth has fited this petrtion for initiation of proceedii^s of Gontempt agamst the respondent for the alleged default in compliance of the order dated 11th ofApril 2008 passed in W.P(S) No.2113 of 2008. , This Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition on 11th ofApril 2008, passed the following order in para 2 & 3: "2. In view of the above, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a detailed representation to the respondent No.2 for consideratfon of her case in accordance with law. (n the event, representation 1s macte by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the same, as earty as possible, preferabfy w'thin a period ofthree weeks ,^,.: ^, .£.' ./"' .•^'' ^IW^ GONTEMPT CASE (Cl No.58 of 2009 3. from the date of receipt of the representafion. With the directlon aforesaid, the petftion stand disposed of." Mr. Adil Minhaz, learned counsel for the petttioner submits that after passing of the aforesaid OFder, a represerrtation was ffledon 19.05.2008. He submits that since the order was not comptied, the petitioner had to fil&this Gontempt petitfon on 29.01.2009. A repty to the contempt petition has been fited. Mr. ShaiJendra Shukla, leamed eounsel for the respondent submits that there-is some detay in decicting the representation, but ultimateiy, the representatton has been disposed of on 15.02.2010. He submits that the copy of the order passed on the representation has been flled today itself along with the interim application and one set of the same has been supplied to the counset for the opposite party. He also submits thatafter receiving the representation on 19.05.2008, a Review Petition (PR) No.2229/2009 as wetl as an application for extension of time to comply with the order .dated 11th pf April 2008 were frt€d.,Hefurther submits that some time has been consumed in declding the representation of the petitioner, but the same is neither willful nor intended, as the entire time has been consumed in proeedurat aspects. Bethat as it may, sincethe representation has already been decided by the concemed authority and ttie Review Petition as well as an applicatlon for extension of time were filed for complying wtth the order, 1 do not deem it appropriate to proceed-further in this matter. In view of the above, the proceedings of contempt are droppedat thls stage. [ Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge shyna