IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C ^^/ll ®s,. & 8e?i<;N APPLICANT ^ ..^' €^ ^" (1) JATI PRAMAN PATRA UCCHA ESTARIYA CHHANBIN SAMITI, ADIM JATI ANUSANDHAN AWYAM PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, PANDIT DINDAYAL UPADHAYAY NAGAR, SECTOR 4, RAIPUR (C.G.) (2) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (ANUSHANDHAN) ADIM JATI ANUSANDHAN AWYAM PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) RESPONDENTS v/s (1) Ku. DIVYA GAUTAM, AGE ABOUT 25 YRS, D/0 SHRI S.P. GAUTAM, R/0 AGANPUR, CHITRAKOT ROAD, INFRONT OF POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, P.0. DHARAMURA, JAGDALPUR DISTRICT BASTAR (C.G.) (2) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANUSUCHIT JATI AYWAM ANUSUCHIT JANJATI KALYAN VIBHAG, D.K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) APPUCATIQN FO^ EXTENSION OF TIME. That the applicant most respectfully submits as under- ^ •22JUUOH ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C.No.457of2011 APPLICANTS : RESPONDENT8 Jati Praman Patra Uccha Estariya Chhanbm Samiti & Aiiother. VERSU8 Ku. Divya Gautam & Anofher. APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Mateen Siddique, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shii Amn Sao, Govemment Advocate forthe State/respondent No.2 ORDERCORAL) (Passed on 01st day ofAugust, 2011) 1. By way of this application, the applicants pray for extension of time by graiitmg six weeks time for deciding the applicatioB ofthe respondent No. 1. 2. This Court, vide order dated 27.07.2010, passed in W.P.(C) No. 477/2010, directed the applicants herein, to decide ftie application ofthe respondeiit No. 2 (petitioner therein) wifhin a period offour weel<s from ttie date ofreceipt ofa copy offhe order. 3. The applicants did not take any steps either for extension oftime or tbr conclusion ofthe enquiry, as directed earlier. After a period of one year, this application is moved for extension of time from today, when one year period has already come to an end without any justification. This appears to be a device to avoid the proceedings ofthe contempt ofCourt asprimafacie, it appears that the applicant has defied fhe order passed by this Court. 4. In view of the above, the application fbr extension of time, is rejected. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge