IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) No .'-5-2.V 2011 Singte Bflnch PETITIONER ...• ^^< Ram Prasad Rathore, S/o. Shri Mohan Singh Rathore, ff-y y Aged about 34 years, ^•i^y" ..••*' \ ^ y^ x./ y-'x-.i?''' ..•'''°') ..•••"^'...<\-"~'' <<••%/ ^' ><»' SPONDENTS R/o. Gram Girwar, Post - Lalpur, Tahsil - Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Thakur Ram Singh, Collector, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. B.K. Rajput, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF..THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS'ACT AND UNDER ARTICLET215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA + XI-HC—78 sv^vv K;-)i<<i ^^f ^^ St^ff^) *11*1CTI »l*<lch T^ •^l<<lt1<l, 'g^lRPTS, rqcll'M1< <^-+•G> S< (C^ ^L'yZ.rt 1 fFl. 200 3TI^?T 'WV (•^f^g^sr) wiiw^ftgsn^f SB : Hon'ble Shri Wlanindra Mohari 14-09-2011 Shri N. K. Chatterji, counsel fc|r the petitioner/s. l-1eard. Learned counsel for the fj ^if'M^I'l ^W^^ ^f fs1^ <f<1'(r$f< ^73TfOT3flt?r Shrivastava, J^ etitioner/s submits that earlier the petitioner/s had filed writ petition'Uefore this Court aggrieved by notice dated 06-04-2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Assistant Commissioner. In the aforesaid writ petition, staterhent was made by the learned State counsel that the notice dated 06-04-J2011 is only a tentative opinion of the authority and the factthat the petitioher/s have been given a notice shows that no final decision in the matter hls been taken and the same would be only after the receipt of reply. Consicjering the aforesaid statement, the writ petition was finally disposed off ottserving that the show cause notice shows tentative opinion and not ^ respondents shall duly consider the appropriate enquiry before coming to| of the petitioner/s. It is submitted th^ The order passed by this Coijirt petition was disposed off observing this Court against the notice dat^c <;' submission made by learned Stat^ final decision and further that the reply filed by the petitioner/s and hold any conclusion adverse to the interest t though reply has been submitted by the petitioner/s on 13-07-2011, till d^te, no decision has been taken. It is also submitted that in the spirit of th^ order of the Court, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to tal^e decision in the matter expeditiously, but decision has not been taken, whiij;h amounts to willful disobedience. on 04-07-2011 shows that the writ fhat the petitioner/s have approached M 06-04-2011 and in view of the counsel. It is not the case of the r; ^ -+- ,^- XI-HC—78 ss^V V fti-ii'* dqi ST^'itiilicfc 'r^ •^" n^Tumane ^st •^I^I'T!^, (s-flly'ifi, faciiyy »im?(raiHich Wl 200 SII^T TT??>' ('^f^S?) petitioner/s that without consideringl been passed. Th'e matter has not date. Moreover, the notice dated 06) Commissioner, and it is found that the respondent-Collector with a copy |to ^W^T^ tff*^tlf ^f f^^ <^i-^« ^raiRn aii^i the reply, certain orders have now l|)een decided by the respondents till [04-2011 was issued by the Assistant petitioner/s have submitted reply to the Assistant Commissioner. ttle In that view of the matter, 1 am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents. | Accordingly, the petition is disi)nissed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge