...l,; KR@l8 BencB IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ Contempt Case (Civil) No.3^.^,./2010 APPLICANTS: ^y ^ ^ •••',_ ;:j^ ^' ^^ a^?< ^...... ^..-,-A'^ ...A..^n^7 ^ ^A""o^' Jitendra Shandey, S/o Shri Priyaram Shandey, aged about 31 years, R/o Village Bengchul (Patadi) & Post Telkuja via Bhaisma, Tahsil & District Korba (CG) AmitvKumar Minz, S/o Shri Hijnus Minz, aged about 26 years, R/o F- 1362, Everest Vihar, HTPS Colony, Darri, Tahsil & District Korba (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: Dr. Kamal Preet Singh Collector, Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE COURTS OF CONTEMPT ACT READ WITH ARTICLE ^l5 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC—78 3TT^T ^T {<tli<=h TWT 3TT^T sh^Jch h k ^ ^WCtT «»H|c|» 7S[ r^l<41c'l^, ^Til<H^|(o, fs|<rll<Ltlj,< ^^......&^...^.^..^'yl^ 3TI^?T '^Sff ( yifyT^T) lF^TTWRf?H ^H^T SB : Hon'ble Shri iVianindra iVioltan Shrivastava. J 03-11-2011 Shri Shrijan Shukla. couns^ Shri Saurabh Dangi, couns|3i This contempt petition ^i disobedience of order dated 27/1 Court directed the responder|t representation. Learned counsei for the p^t fiied by the wo petitioners has their representation. He further sij training but the representation of are aiiowing more meritorious On the other hand, ieam^< averments made in the repiy the order ofthe Court. The matt^r for consideration and some time order to decide the representatioh and finaiiyon 10/1/2011, the claim of petitioner No.1 has beerj but for some reason, the ciaim submits that under these not correct. Further submission ^i in taking decisibn in the matter isj i procedures for which he tendersl CM^ICI^II iTFTc^ ^ 1^^ T^R^TT ^»'3tfim3TT^T siforthepetitioners. for the resDondents, is been fiied by the petitioner aileging willful 710 passed in W.P(S) No.3855/10 whereby thls therein to take decision on petitioners' &titioners submits that though the representation >een decided, there has been deiay in deciding ibmits that petitioner No.1 has been selected for ?etitioner No.2 has been rejected saying that they for training. sd counsel for the respondent referring to the that the respondent had no intention to flout r relating to ciaim ofthe petitioners was taken up consumed in hoiding the matter for enquiry in of the petitioners as per the order of the Court authority passed an order by which the accepted and he has been seiected for training petitioner No.2 has been rejected. He further >, the aiiegation of willful disobedience is iearned counsei for the respondent is that delay not defiberate but bonande due to administrative unquaiified apology. He further submits that in carjdidates subhtits M/as co^npetent circumfetances ^^ss®-^ /^^^\. / ^r ^'^ "% ^ XI-HC—78 ^n^T^T'f^N? ^n 3TT^T $^*ii<^ L Deepii ^ NW?ff^HT^» 'S^ T<{WW^\, '^hTT^, [®l<vtl'H>4,< ..C^:...&^.e.l<llt^^2^^ "^ 20( 3:n^?TTT^:T ('^i^t^T^) WTTW Trf^T 3TT^T future the authority wouid be carei the time stipulated. Taking into consideration ti parties and considering that the decided though belatediy, for whi apology, i am not inciined to pr< discharged. it is however made clear f^at the orders of the Court are required to be compiied with within the time sti ensure that compiiance of the c stipuiated. cbl^f<n^1vl TTTO?Tf ^ fe^t Ti:^$TT ^^tRw^Ty^T |jl in complying with the order of the Court withln ^e submission made by iearned counsel for the representations of the petitioners have been |ch, the respondent has tendered unconditional ^ceed further in the matter. Rule is therefore buiated and ali endeavoriishould be made to 1-der of the Court takes place within the time Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge