it"in"fB3:l.a®^J •\'^t '"^, ifc- ••'; ^.^z BEFORE THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civa Contempt Petition No.p) Of2005 PETITIQNER 1 's®- ,e^e Vs1' ^ .al..^ ^y^"^-"'"^- •^' y>~-"r i^ ^'^y' Avs" I).A-- CONTEMNOR :-/Shalbh Sfadda, son ofLate Rajendra Prasad Shukla, aged about 25 years, Resident ofC/o Nagendra Shukla, Near Raja Bakery, Jungle Para, Nagri, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS :- Y.S. Bele, Additional Secretary, Govemment ofCUiattisgarh, Tribal aad Schedule Caste Develop- ment Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE'SlS OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Ifft' l-j' !GH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ABiLSPUR; CHHATTiSHGARH SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI H.L.DATTU, C.J. Contsmpt Petition No. 131 of 2005 PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: Shalbh Shukta Vs. Y.S. Beie Present Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on l" March, 2< This Court whiie disposing of W.P. No. 3924 of 2005 by its ordsr dated 12/09/2005, had directed the respondent to consider and decide the representation of ths petitioner without taking into consideration the order dated 04.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development, Raipur, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, if any, made by the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the respondent while considering the representation of the petitioner has once again taken into consideration the order dated 04.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, lt~ is asserted that the respondent has committed an act of contempt which warrants initiation of contempt proceedings against him. !n my v'iew, if for any reason, the respondent while considering representation of the petitioner has yet again taken into consideration the order dated 04.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Commission, Tribal and ^ Scheduled Caste Development, Raipur, the petitioner can definiteiy question the order passed by the respondent before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, 1 do not consider it to be a fit case for taking cognizance of the complaint. Therefore, petition is rejected with liberty to the petitioner to question the correctness or otherwlse of the endorsement/order passed by the respondent after considering the representation, before the appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- chief Justice