IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) No.—ZO^—^201^ gg^g gg^ PETITIONB: ^r.^y y ^ Roshari Lal Gawri, S/oManohar Lal, aged about 47 years,R/o Ruprela. Gali, Phaphadih, Raipur (C.G.) ^: ^^ VERSUS <r..^ 'CONTEMNOR/ RESPONDENT Rohit Yadav, Collector, Ralpur, District Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OFJNDIA R/W. SEC^ION 12 OF CONTEMPT OFCOURTACT 1979. sn^i ^r h-u^ ^aIT 3T[^T sii+licft W*K<ff^»W^» 's'sr -^wwi, '^€sw\s,hwwy ..€f..-^...C^^^..z&.^(200 sn^i Tra^' ('^?i3^t) TCIIW^lfTO 31I^B FSB : Hoa'ble Shri Manindra Btohan Shrtvastava, J 26.8.2011 Shri Surul Otwani, couns^l for the petitioner. Shri Suinesh Bajaj, 6'oun^ ^1ilf^i<fli 'Hm??f if 1^'i^t' ^f^.i< ^73(fOT 3(1^1 el for the respondent. Heard on adniission. This petition has been disobedience of fhe order datec CourtmW.P. (C) No.4911/08. fi|led by the petitioner allegiiig willftil 8C1 September, 2008 passed by this madle Leamed counsel for the petition, a statement was fhe representation of the accordance with law, on its ow 4 weeks from. ftie date of was fmally disposed ofon after the order was passed by Court was ulaced before the decision was taken, fhe petitio| notice tbrough their counsel matter was not decided and i1 petition that the matter has b\ receifcit suchl statement Ipetitioner submits that in ti'ie writ bv fhe learaed State counsel that tetitioner shaU be considered in. ^}. merit, preferably witlrin a period of of copy of fhis order. The petition m.ade. It is subiiiitted that fhis Court, a copy of the order of the au|thority concerned, however, when no her and ofher co-owners sent a legal 5.12.2009 (Annexure C-2), but fhe is onlv after fBing of the contempt )^eu finally decided and an order has Otl ^ •r '^ ;p" ^wffS^ 1 '^gP5'""?! XI-HC—78 7=T "4l'4HAl, 0Til<H'ic, [sicii'y^'f. wwtraiHrei ••^200 3^1 'q^q; (ljclfl'sl'^) 311^1 '5BT l<;-fi°b wn 3Tr^?[ wfltaT 4- been passed by fhe responden1|/present inciunbent of fhe of&ce on 11.8.2011. leArned On fhe ofher hand, submits that the respondent we|s fhe month of September, 2010] fhe order of the Court, he took| fhe order offhe Court is compM^d in the retum, learned counse|l various steps were taken froiji towards compliance of the ord^r before the respondent for Cfae wifhia a period of less than one| on 11.8.2011 redressing fhe Taking into consideratioi counsel for fhe parties,. averm) taking into consideration fhat month of September, 2010 and| respondent/present incuinbent] 1 however, to be observed fhat ev( *wli-t<i1-i 'qroA' ^ fe'zt TfaR^n ^;3fRr<T3Ti^r counsel for the respondent posted at the present place only ia and when he came to know about aU expeditious steps to ensure that with. Referring to averment made i for the respondent submits fhat time to time by fhe respondent of fhe Court. The tile was placed |first time on 25th July, 2011 and month, final order has been passed of fhe petitioner. griqvance 1 fhe submission made bv learned 'nts made ui fhe retum and also the respondent was posted in the that the matter was brought to his notice on 25.7.2011 and fhen qnal order was passed on 11.8.2011, I am not inclined to pro4eed in the inatter as fai as of fhe office is concemed. It is. 'n though the orders are passed by tlus Court on statement made tjy the State counsel for decision ofa C';^SifiL^sdtIl?rl sdnimilatf^rl timfa ^thp i=!flrvrt<s ^re ^no^ -maf^^ to tajce & ./" ^SK -.^•f-^. ^-y M-HC—78 ^^ "41<)IC|'4, (?tfl*f<l<B, fqcll'My t(l*1^)l t»»*1t<*> •Wl 200 sn^r 'tRq? ('^(3^1) an^f^i^iw WISII^IsBtfe Prayeen decision wifhin the time ta-ken to seek extension of tim^ circurustances of the case, no 4 present tncumbent-respondent. stipul^ted nor any ofher steps are being tim^. However, in the present facts and ^ase is made out to proceed against The rule is fherefore disct^rged and fhe petition is accordm^ finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Sirafefrr wrcif ^ fs^ rfa^n ^7 STfg-q 3T!^t -(- _^ I ^ l.'-nB