HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No.138 of 2011 Committee of Management .…Petitioner Versus Shri Alok Jain, Principal Secretary, Finance, Govt. of Uttarakhand ...Respondent Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Sushil Vashistha, Brief Holder for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Writ petition no.1230 (M/S) of 2009 was filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 02.08.2006 whereby prayer made by the petitioner to include the name of petitioner-institution for grant-in-aid, was rejected. Writ petition was decided on 27.08.2010 by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation for redressal of his grievance and the competent committee was directed to consider and decide the same in its ensuing meeting. When nothing was done, the petitioner filed a modification application no.880 of 2010. The said modification was decided on 8th October, 2010 and committee was directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six months from that day. Inspite of the order of this Court dated 8th October, 2010, the representation of the petitioner was not decided. The petitioner filed 2 contempt petition. Affidavit of compliance was filed on 3rd September, 2011 in which an order dated 17th August, 2011 rejecting the representation of the petitioner has been annexed. The respondent, on the basis of the said order, has stated in an affidavit that order passed by the Court has been complied. I have seen the affidavit of respondent. In none of the paragraphs the respondent has mentioned about the intention of the Committee to decide the representation within a period of six months. Nowhere it is mentioned in the affidavit that what steps has been taken by the respondent or its subordinate officers to place the matter before the Committee within a period of six months. The same was done only when the contempt notice was issued by the High Court. The conduct of the respondent and its subordinate officers in delaying the matter is not appreciated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that committee has deliberately rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant-in- aid on the ground that the strength of the students in the institution is less than prescribed norms and the institution does not fulfill the prescribed norms. He submitted that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, Committee has not considered the fact that another institution, namely, Janta Junior High School Meharlekh, District Almora was granted grant-in-aid though strength of the students was less in that institution. He submitted that by doing so, the Committee has not acted in proper manner and violated the order passed by this Court on 27.08.2010. 3 Since the representation of the petitioner-institution has finally been decided by the Committee and petitioner has been communicated about the order of the Committee on 17th August, 2011, this Court find that the order passed by this Court has been complied. If the petitioner finds any illegality in the said order, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. In view of the above discussion, contempt petition fails and is dismissed. (V.K.Bist. J,) 20.09.2011 Arti 4