7;--.:^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^.G.V _^ • CONTEMPTCA^^N0.3>^ OF 2011 (Arising out ofW.P.(S) No. 3436/2010) S^U^I B©nch PETITIONER ^l^ ^y^^ '^yr^ RESPONDENTS Akhilesh Upadhyay, agedabout 33 years, S/o Shri Omprakash Upadhyay, Working as a Zila Bal Arakshak, R/o Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Alka Sirohi, age and name of the husband is nbt known to the petitioner, Secretary, Ministry of Personal Grievances, Traimng Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi Smt. NidhjKshibber, age and name of husband is not know to the petitioner, Secretary, Department of General Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Pradeep Khare, age and name of father is not known to the petjtioner, Secretary, Department of General Administratjon, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .X \\ ^^ss%^ XI-HC—78 ^^T^rf^N' '?T8TT 3il^^l $»)^{jc^ *II*l^il ^ilich ^^r ^i'MKri^, ^9111^^(0, fs|diy^< ^....^.c:.....^..©...^^y//, STT^T T^RT C^lf^S^tT) ^^TTW^TT^H^T SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice ^ 14.11.2011 Mr. Ashok Soni, Couns Mr. Pawan Shrivastavg Heard. This petition has beer of the order dated 1 4.07.2011 Learned counsel for| respondents were dlrect^d appiication in the matter of| within a reasonable period date of receipt of copy ofth^ the respondent. This Court shall be communicated to No.2. He further submit^ representation to ait the r^ compSiance of the order pa^ came to know, only through| that some decision on long back on 30.05.2010, petitioner.He submits that| C^Tqfoi4l'l iTF^ff ^f 'fe^t ^N^K '^'3?RW 3T^5T anlndra Mohan Shrivastava }e! for thepetitioner. \, Counsei for respondent No.2. fiied aileging wiliful disobedlence 1 passed inW.P.(S) No.3436/2010. the petitioner submlts that the to consider the petitioner's allocation and to take a decision |not exceeding 4 months from the said order in the office of each of had aiso directsd that the decislon the petitioner through respondent that the petitioner sent his sspondents for taking decision in ssed by this Court. The petitioner the repiy fiied by the respondents, pcner's appiication had been taken was not communicated to the the subsequent order, which was petlt|cner v^hich l^ -..•• 1% .lc.i i '^... ^i^r ^i'f^ir^ WT ^TI^T ^^i<^ 's^r ^ii-4i(r!4, ^•(ii-y<i(o, M<ni<-i^< '.r.:......C^....@_-,3^ // ? 11 r"^ 200 ^r^r '(^K (^i^^r) passed on 3rd of Octobe|' communicated to him tii! date. On the other hand, submits that the order of this| submits that though this 14.07.2010 for consideratlon fact, the dedsion on the s| Government as back as on 3Q of the said order by this Co( conslderation and on 3rd of passed in the Department petitioner's representation an^ endorsed to the petitioner. Taking into considera|t iearned counsel for the pai| documents avaiiabie on recc(r further En the matter. This contempt petitic(n However, the petitioner would| as may be availabie to him various orders and decisions ^nfeFft^ 'HR^f ^* 'fe^' ^^R ^3tfiiH3^^T 't' 2011, has aiso not been leafsed counsel for rsspondent No.2 Court stands complied with. He Cjourt had passed an order on |of petitloner's appiication, but In ime was aiready taken by the }.05.2010. Later on, after passing )^irt, the matter was taken up for Qctober 2011, an order has been |of Home (Police) rejectlng the the copy of the same has been ;ion the submissions made by ties as also the repiy and the rd, I am not inciined to proceed stands finally disposed of. be at liberty to avai! such remedy ijinder the law, if aggrieved by the n the matter of his ailocation. NII^^^^^UU^, <H.1WIM—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. J^^ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge