IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case (Civil) No...3.?..7.../2011 APPLICANT Y Seeina Ukey, D/o Shri Ram Bilas Ukey, Aged 'about 24 years, R/o Village Karethi, Post Atergaon, District -...-.•••r^'v^^-- vmage J^aremi, ^-•""^rsW-^''''".....--"' Tahsil Chhuriya, rP,eaerfedw^.....--"""- Rapandgaon(C.G.) ^"' p^ae v^^",^s' VERSUS ./CONTEMNOR Shri B. L. Dehari Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS AGT 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE-215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ' 5? tI-HC—78 sn^r qn ft;-f 'SW 3"^I *4i* (^) ^mcn ai*<icb TSf "i<i<i]<?i<i, '^'aly'iiG, fs)diyti,< ^......^^c^&^^ 3^f iraqT ('^f3«i^I) TOItW^lftCTWI^f FSB : Hpa'bIe^hriMa^iindrsj 14.11.2011 Shri Varua Sharma, Shri Sourabh Dangi, coJLinsel for fhe petitioner. eo|unsel for fhe respondent. This petition has beer| disobedience of the order ds| W.P.(S)No. 2553/11. filed by fhe petitioner aUeging willfiil |ted 12.5.2011 passed by this Coiirt in learined It is subiuitted by order of the Court required ^h ajid also to take a decisioiil representation wifhin a perio|l of copy of the order. The respondent on 4.6.2011 and| within a period of one monfh) ftie stipulated period and decided vide order dated 26.9[ On the other hand, fhat after the receipt of fhe respondent kept one post va Court, however, some delay in the matter. He further +1^^^1'1 'RRcTf ^ 'fe1^ <F*l-(^i< ^T siRpr sii^r Mohau Shrivastava, J.1 counsel for fhe petitioner fhat the ^he respondent to keep one post vacant ia the matter, considering petitioner's of one monfh from fhe date of receipt (>rder of this Court was seived upon fhe decision was reqiured to be taken but, the decision was not taken wifhin tjelatedly, fhe representation has been [2011. leaifaed counsel for the respondent submits o^der of this Court, steps were taken and ;ant in conipUance of fhe order of fhe I^as been caused in taking final decision submits that as fhe matterrelates to the ^ E[F7~' /--'" 'l & '-^.-...^,.- XI-HC—7S S^SVt ft-tffi wns'^rwqw Praveeii 'S^I "ttMld'4, '^'QSWTS, f^dlti^ •Wl. 200 sn^T'q^TCrt^1) TOirarflfci 3ii^i -2_. aspect of reservation, fhe resj in fhe matter after seekins and tn fhat pfocess, delay hE| He submits fhat in fhese circt may be condoned. >ondent took some time to take decision ijnstructions from his higher authorities been caused which is not tatentionaL umstances, fhe delay ia taldng decision consideratlion Takuig into passed by the Court, fhe respjo: by fhe Court and also takia^ the reply, on account of whic|i tiine stipiilated aiid fhat fin^ unconditional apology has bj been caused, I ani not inclinei] The rule is therefore disposed of, however, reser^ia^ recourse to such reinedy as i4ay she is aggrieved by fhe decisi respoudent. qTOfepih •qTOdf tf fe^ •rfSR?!? ^sifinsn^r the fa.et that after fhe order was pjondent kept one post vacant as directed |into consideration the ground urged in cfi, fhe order could not be passed wifhiu ^lly, the matter has beea decided and 'en tendered for fhe delay which has to proceed further in the matter. ^lischarged and fhe petition is finaUy Uberty to fhe petitioner to take be avaUable to her under fhe law, if |on taken on her representation by the ( • Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge fin— E