c^- 1 ^/- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (^^^ ^ C^ CONTEMPT fiETITION /CASE'^0. [ \ J^A2009 Q^m^ PETITIONERS (Complainants) ^-lta' ^^ ^..-•" ^^ Q^-i^ .....-••ri.^^. •^••^•^ ,..-2^ 2. Smt. Savitri Malakar W/o Shri Shobharam, Aged about 35 years, President, Adarsh Mahila Prathamik Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar, Ward No. 25, Vinoba Nagar, RAIGARH Dist. Raigarh (CG) Smt. Sevati Ejardar, W/o Shri. Jeevanlal Aged about 36 years, Salesman/ Director, Adarsh Mahila Prathamik Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar, Ward No. 25, Vinoba Nagar, RAIGARH Dist. Raigarh (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENT (Contemner) Dr. B.SAnant Secretary, Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, RAIPUR CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SEFTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 197JREADWITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTTON OF INDIA. -HC-22 <^ ^TT^T^T R-ii<=b ^^ $n^i<^ <iRa •^ ^EET ^HH^ ^Tl1y41<o; f^Qll^y 3ff^?T 'q?W MW^l ^hNlcbdf^^^^{c)^.^2<^^ •M I^^T' ^TI^T'^<?T^R: ^rf^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan $hrivastava, J. 25-03-2011 chl^f<rt<fll <4Hdf1? 'f^zt <f^'^l< ^srf^man^r Shri V. K. Punjabi, counsel for t Shri Rahul Tamaskar, counset 1J3r respondent. Heard. Thi's petition has been fited by t| of order dated 10-11-2008 passed No. 6249 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petiti^ order passed by this Court on 10-11-^ petitioners was directed to be decid^d preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a c the copy ofthe order along with repr^sentation was submitted on 12-11- 2008 in the office of the hie petitioners. ie petitioner alleging non-compliance by this Court in Writ Petition (C) •ner submits that as a result of the 008, stated above, the appeal of the t>py of this order. It is submitte^that Secretary of the concerned department/respondent. He submits| that even thereafter, the matter remained pending until the appeal \|/as decided on 28-08-2009 by the department. He submits that though a^peal preferred by the petitioners has tithin the ^ipulated period. He further been decided, but it was not decided v^| submits that this is contemptuous, ar| taken against the respondent. On the other hand, learned cc^ the order passed by this Court has b| Secretary, who was Incharge ofthe c^ on the basis of the decision taken by| submits that the respondent cannot committed by the Additionat Secretaryj id therefore, action for contempt be |jnsel for respondent submitted that ^en complied with by the Additionai tee, passed ah order on 28-08-2009 the Minister of the department, He t?e held liable for contempt, if any, whowas Incharge ofthe case. He however submits that the responden?: has highest regard for the Court {^ ^fe-4 orders and proceedings. -HC-22 3TT^r'^r f<Tii<=h <fflt^T 5n^icft <if^a ^» Tumane ^sf ^WM^, ^WW, ^^\wy. 3TT^T 'q^?, .^^'.^^Cc)^}rl •^ /200 WRC^T^Ht^ f^[8T' ^Tc^T'^<?TW;Rftn -2.' Considering the submission and the pleadings on record, it is department has decided the matte< decision taken by the appellate Therefore, irrespective of the Court cannot proceed against the re^ was the Secretary of the departnr^ pleading as to how the respondent the appeaf. The petitioner, if so petition against those, who are Court order. 1 am not inolined to therefore discharged. The petition is finally disposed n-1ade by leamed counsel for the parties fou|nd that the Additional Secretary of the on 28-08-2009 on the basis of the aut^ority/the Minister of the department. conte|npt has been committed or not, this tpondent merely on the ground that he ?nt, in the absence of any specific |was responsible for delay in deciding apvised, may file properly constituted respj^nsible for delay in compliance of the pl-oceed further in the matter Rule is <^i^f<n<flti ^i^<nf"?'f^st ^^K '^3^R3T[^T off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge r^ -sfe^