BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l CONTEMPTCASE (C) N0. 33lt / 2011 ^9»» •cn APPLICANT: •^^" RESPONDENT^ Satish Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri C.L. Sahu, aged about 43 years, Upper Division Teacher, R/o Bhartiya Nagar Bilaspur VERSUS "rvV L.< ^^o^n^ District Education Officer Bilaspur (C.G) ARISING OUT OF ORD^ DATED 10/4/10 PASSED IN W.P. (S). 1142/2010 CONTEMPT CASE UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971. The above named Applicant respectfully begs to submit as under : -F l^isi^i XI-HC—78 3TT^f ^T'f^NR' 'cT^T 3TT^T'9T??NF -^f ^. Hi*n^r <»»»irai ~3^T ^{^j^q^ ^Tl1^^i(o, [^<V1I^^< , ^rv^-C^^c)^^^} 200 ^TT^T TT^T ( y*t^<i^) ^<1TW;CTf^T3^t SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra MoharLS 21-09-2011 Shri Somkant Verma, counsel fc|r the petitioner. Heard. Learned counsel for the petition petitioner was finally disposed off vid( <^j^{<n4i 'W^if ^ f^ft <f^^{< ^3tRW 3^?t lrivastava,J. pr submits that the writ petition filed by the ^ order dated 01-04-2010, in view of the statement made by the learned State' counsel that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same will ^e considered and decided, in accordance with law and in the light of the decisionq of this Court in Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Others, 2009(111)MPJR(SC)^9. Yeshwant Kumar Bharadawaj v. Municipal Corporation, Durg & ano\her, 2006(11) MPJR-CG-96 and Gopesh Kumar Verma v. The State Gpvt of Chhattisgarh and another, W.P.(S)No.4130of2005,\N\Vrt\n a perio|d of fpur weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. He submits that the |representation has been submitted before the respondent on 01-03-2011, but till (jlate, the decision has not been taken. He submits that the undertaking given by t(ie learned State counsel before the Court is binding on the State authorities. It is made clear that even no ^ Court, the writ petition was disposed (j petition for adjudication, in view of th| Ipecific direction has been issued by this ^ff observing that nothing survives in this ^ statement made by the learned State With the aforesaid observationj the date of receipt of a copy of this o| revive this petition. counsel. Therefore, the respondents ^ire obliged under the law to decide the matter of the petitioner in accordance ^/ith the undertaking given by the learned State counsel before the Court. the petition is finally disposed off. It is ordered that if no decision is taken in th^ matter within a period of one month from |'der, the petitioner would be at liberty to Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge