: -£ INTHEmCMCOmyi>OFGHHATTISGARH,At-BIIJlSPUR CONTEMPTCASEICIVILINo. ^Hl OF 2011 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER,bT. 25/9/2010 PASSED IN W.P.(S) N0. 5530 OF;20tO PETITIONER .-*• ABHIJITKANTCHAUDHURY, AGED-33YEARS S/0'SHRIA. K. CHAUDHURY, <*' • • • • . . . ' • '. . • WORKINGAS-CATERING '_,^^3tJS^'r v.;;'.' -.-—-—- ------ ;. . ^O^^^--^^-^ MANAGER/AT-.R^^ ^<<^<tp"''^..^ :.:',,.,, .^^•,''' ^ ;1:: 1': ,.,': ~ C^'"Toawi*^' -.l-^"" V V ' SECRETARIAT, CHHATTISGAI ^^ SECRETARIAT, CHHATTISGARH, R/0 F - 2, NEW RAJBHAWAN COLONY, CD/IL LINES, RAIPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDfiNT SHRI JAWAHAR SHRryASTAVA THE SECRETARY TO THE HQNTBLE GOVERNOR OF STATE OF CHMATnSGARH, RAJBHAWAN, CIVILLINES,RAIPUR(C.G.) . CONTEMPT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE - 215 OF THE GQNSTITUTION G®3H iA aREAD WITH SECTION - 12 OF Tftfe CONTEMPT OF THe COURT ACT. 1971 ^ ^!a XI-HG—78 an^i^ii f<-fi<t. WITc:n^?r soiiii (t^ ^WVfT (*i<irai 'S^ '•^Tfqi^PT, E9ti1<H'tS, fsK'll'yy ..Cf?.^:..^.^...^ll^l!L aTT^r T?RT (^igsi^) |SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohaa Shrivastava. J.1 29.9.2011 Shri R.K. Kesharwani, co Heard on admission. jinsel for the petitioner. The petitioner alleges vjrillful disobedience of order dated 25.9.2010 passed iaW.P. (S) N{i.5530/10, whereby the wnt petition ffled by fhe petitioner was disp^sed of wifh a direction to decide fhe representation of the petitioner with law, as expeditiously as submitted representation to fh received in fhe ofiBce ofrespond|i 25.10.2010, ffae representatioB| State Govt., was also forwarde4 When no decision was taken, December, 2010, foUowed t>y 'tlWil't^-f *<Wcif'if'feIZt <Fa|<^K ^Tsffiiiisn^ if already not decided, in accordance possible. The petitioner was also granted liberly to file fresh repilesentation alor^ wifh fhe copy of fhe order. Learned counsel for the ^etitioner submits that the petitioner respondent along with copy of the order dated 25.9.2010 and f4e copy of writ petition, which was ;nt on 12.10.2010. Vide memo dated of fhe petitioner, as filed before the to the respondent for consideration. the petitioner sent i^minder on 13th another reminder dated 30th June, 2011. It is submitted by leame|d counsel for the petitioner that even I,fhough fhis Court directed tb decide the representation of fhe , petitioner as expeditiously as possible, ahnost one year faas lapsed, i but decision has not been taken. ^ r^ '*!!^. XI-HC—78 "Srcf -r?iTin^q-^ ®tlly'l<o,fs|ivll'Mll,< NIH^fl tdWcd A perusal of fhe order d, inW.P. (S) No,5530/10 shows ^ted 25.9.2010 passed by this Court piat fhe writ petition was disposed of which is now being passed, fhe) chl<4i^l<l1T1 '^Wpff ^f 'fe^' <f<if<^T<: ^TStRtt? 3I)t?T with direction to the respondenjts to decide the representation of fhe petitioner if not already dec]ided, in accordance witti law, as expeditiousfy as possible, Mo|re fhan 11 monfhs have elapsed. Though fhere is no time liiujit provided for taking decision on petitioner's representation, fh^ iutention of the ca-der is fhat the matter should be decided as ex{)editiousty as possible. Taking into consideralfion that fhe matter relates fo consideration of peti.tioner's ca^e for proinotion, as also takmg into consideration fhe period whic}i has elapsed by now, fhough this Court is not iaclined to issue 4ny notice, it has to be observed fhat fhe orders passed by fhis Couijt are required te be compUed with ia its true spirit and decision nejeds to be taken as expeditiously as possible, as observed earlier. If fhe representation of tfie petitioner is not decided wifhin a period of 3 monftis fl-om fhe i^ate of receipt of copy of thfe order, petitioner would be at Uberty to take Piauuiu' recourse to such remedy as m^y be avaUable to him under the law for speci&c tiine bound directio^. for consideration of his case. Wifh the aforesaid observations, the petition is finatly disposed of. - Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge >