•JC<*^"^-^-^-k: -^-•\^^V^' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR l^ CONTEMPT CASE fQ No.^VI / 2011 iinale Bencb PETITIONER ...•• : .A"'w^-''' ..•••''' Aged about 28 year; '...'•"y'...-^ R/°-Gram semra> ^' '^^y _A^\\ Post-Gaurela, Tahsi Dinesh Ram Singh, S/o. Late Ganesh Ram Singh, Aged about 28 years, ^s^ "^L RESPONDENTS Tahsil - Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Thakur Ram Singh, Collector, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. B.K,, Rajput, Assistant Coramissioner, Tribal Welfare, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) CQNTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND UNDERARTICLE 215 OF THE •:<'•• CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^- XI-HC—7S 311^1 V K.-iM ^TT 3TT^T ^»iJN> *\. -+• \ e]^ *11HCTI (h*<iqi ^sf '^wiv\u,, ®T)l'y< ,|sicii'Hti,< .^A:.d-^^. ^) WI, 200 sn^i 'T5R? (licitl«<<tT) TRIIW ^ffei sn^it SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Wlotian Shrivastava, J. 14-09-2011 Shri N. K.-Chatterji, counsel fi hleard. Learned counsel for the petitioner/s had filed writ petition ^i^[<rRl^ 'W^'^ 'f^st T^iR^R ^aifiltSD^CT )r the petitioner/s. petitioner/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, statepnent was made by the learned State counsel that the notice dated 06-04-2011 is only a tentative opinion of the authority and the fact that the petitiijiner/s have been given a notice shows that no final decision in the matter Kas been taken and the same would be only after the receipt of reply. Consipering the aforesaid statement, the writ petition was finally disposed off cjbserving that the show cause notice shows tentative opinion and not la final decision and further that the respondents shall duly consider the| The order passed by this petition was disposed off observin^ this Court against the notice submission made by learned Sta^ reply filed by the petitioner/s and hold appropriate enquiry before coming t() any conclusion adverse to the interest of the petitioner/s. It is submitted th^t though reply has been submitted by the petitioner/s on 13-07-2011, till ijlate, no decision has been taken. It is also submitted that in the spirit of tl|ie order of the Court, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to taj<e decision in the matter expeditiously, but decision has not been taken, whfch amounts to willfu] disobedience. Ci^urt on 04-07-2011 shows that the writ that the petitioner/s have approached dalted 06-04-2011 and in view of the (e counsel. It is not the case of the Zfi;®»' ; '»1 :.---•• -^;:;^'' XI-HC—78 an^rV Ri-li'* ^iTsn^T'aTOv Tumane ^ -?5cf -4MM^!, gTily'Ko, fsidl^y <(W?ir tbHlch W[ 200 sn^i Traq? (tpf^^q) been passed. The matter has not ^rqfef^ 'tTFRff 1Pf "f^t^ <^t^i< ^'sifinaffi^r petitioner/s that withoyt considerinS the reply, certain orders have now been decided by the respondents till date. Moreover, the notice dated 0^-04-2011 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, and it is found that l]he petitioner/s have submitted reply to the respondent-Collector with a copij to the Assistant Commissioner. In that view of the matter, 1 am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents. j Accordingly, the petition is dis|missed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge