HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEIVIPT CASE (CIVIU N0.310/2009 PETITIONER -^ RESPONDENTS Ram Kumar Rat.hore, S/o Shri R.P. Rathore, aged about 51 years, R/o Bharti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.),Occupation Assistant Engineer; Rural Engineering Sen/ice, Pathariya, Distriet Bilaspur Versus D.S. Mishra, Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattigarh) Shri P.Amaigan, Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) Shri Sonmani Vora, Collector, Bilaspur, Collectorate Premises, Bilaspur (C.G.) P.S. Sudhakar, Executive Engineer, RES, Division,Bilaspur, District Bilaspur(C.G.) CONTEIVIPT PETITION UNDERSECTION 120F THE CONTEMPT OFCOURTACT Appearance: Shri Sandeep Dubey, Counsel for the petitioner. ORALORDER (09.11.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, Heard. Petitioner Ram Kumar Rathore was respondent No.4 in i/V.P;(S) No.3356/2009. The said writ petition was filed by one 's'-'- ' ' - :'~ ^&liotelal Dahire, who had challenged the order dated 29.06.2009, by t^? 1 ,ej /-''•- r: CONTEMPT CASE (CiVID N0.310/2009 which, the present petitioner has been posted as Assistant Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Patharia, District Bilaspur, where Chotela! Dahire was already working. On 13.07.2009, when the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge ofthis Court, the counsel for Chotelal Dahire prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition witha liberty to make a representation before the authorities concerned. Accprdingly, the writ petition was dismissed, as withdrawn with the liberty to Chotelal Dahire to make a representation and it was atso directed that if Chotelal Dahire makes a representation within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy ofthe order dated 13.07,2009, the same would be decided by the authorities concerned within a further periodof 3 weeks from the date of its receipt strictly in accordance withlaw. tt was further directed that till then, the order impugned i.e. order dated 29.06.2009 shall be keptin abeyance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits.that Chotetal Dahire is still workingat the same place and since therepresentation has not been decided so far, a proceeding of contempt be initiated against the respondent authorities. On being pointedly asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether Chotelal Dahire had made any representation in time or not, he is unable to answerthe query. Apparently, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the saidwrit petition wasa conditional order and no material has been brought on record toshow thatthose conditions were fulfilied. In the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am not inclined to proceed further in this Contempt Petition filed at the instance of petitionerRam Kumar Rathore (respondent No.4 in the writ petition) for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondent aythorities for non-compliance ofthe order dated 13.07.2009. The petitioh has no merit. The same is liable to be di^missed andis hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. ! Sd/- K^ K.S: i:?w B 9 » M Rj H 5n shyna x Sunil Kumar Suiha Judge !sk