HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR M.C.C. N0.412/2011 @ APPLICANTS K^ 1. Santosh Kumar Gupta, aged about 46 years, S/o B.N. Gupta, Sub-Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Kawardha (C.G.) 2. R.K. Soni, Aged about 53 years, S/o Late Malkhan Soni, Sub-Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Dhamdha, DJstrict- Durg (C.G.). 3. Vijay Kumar Maheshwari, Aged about 46 years, S/o Late Surajmal Maheshwari, Sub-Engineer Janpad Panchayat Gurur, District- Durg (C.G.), 4. Sudhir Kumar Tiwari, Aged about 46 years, S/o Late Radheshyam Tiwari, Sub-Engineer P.M.G.S.Y., Raipur (C.G.). 5. B.R. Pal, Aged about 47 years, S/o Dauwa Ram Pal, Sub-Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Kanker, District- Kanker 6. Bhushan Lal Dewangan Aged about 47 years, S/o D.L. Dewangan, Sub- Engineer, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District Dhamtari, (C.G.). 7. Shailesh Kumar Shrivastava Aged about 46 years S/o Rajendra Kumar Sub-Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Durg (C.G.). 8. Harjeet Singh, Aged about 47 years, S/o Late Shyam Singh, Sub-Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), At present R/o 241/6, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.). 9. Satish Kumar Tamrakar, Aged about 47 years, S/o Late H.G. Tamrakar, Sub Engineer, P.M.G.S.Y. No.1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 10 Ishwar Donode, Aged about 45 years, S/o Late Ratan Donode, Sub-Engineer, Gramin Yantriki Sewa Sambhag, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 11 Ishwari Prasad Somanker, Aged about lfs':#:., ^^•"~ ,,^' .<^.^' NON-APPLICANT RESPbNDJNT M.C.C.NO. 412/2011 47 years, S/o Late Maniklal Somankar, Sub-Engineer, Janpad Panchayat Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). VERSUS Surgious Minj, Principal Secretary-cum- Development Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). o^> APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF CONTEMPT CASE fC) N0. 16/2011. ^ F/ Appearance: Mr. VaibhavGoverdhan, Advocate forthe applicants. ORAL ORDER (25.07.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHAJ. Heard. The petitionerc have filed this petition for restoration of Contempt Case (C) No. 16/2011, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.06.2011 as no one appeared for the petitioners, when the above contempt case was taken up for hearing. Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since the counsel for the petitioners was busy before another bench, therefore, he could not appear before the Contempt Court on 24.06.201 1 when the above contempt case was taken up for hearing. On due consjderation of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, 1 am satisfied that the absence of leamed counsel for the petitioners on 24.06.2011 when Contempt Case (C) No. 16/2011 was taken up for hearing was based on bonafide grounds. Accordingly, M.C.C. No. 412/2011 is allowed and the Contempt Case (C) No. 16/2011 is restored to its original number. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rahul