Vr^Ll ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR <^^^(c.v^ CONTEMPT PETI^N N0. /I t OF 20lSiFS|^ PETITIONBR : ^f- -.^^ .^^' .^^^" ^M- Gopal Prasad Sahu, S/o Late Shri Anand Ram Sahu, aged about 60 years, Retired Assistant Teacher, R/o Mathpara, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG). \^ ^•"" RESPONDENTS : Versus 1. Shri Ajay Singh, Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Shri Nand Kumar, Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA^LEAD WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971. ^ r-HC-22 'STT^T'^T Rrli<=h 3T^?T 5h<-tict) 'yf^a -^^ ^tt^tld^ ^Tily4!^ f^l^l^y ^ WROTT^RT^ 3n^r 'V^K ^:.c^..:..:.^^^/<° fN^ST' 3TT^r'^<rIW;R^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 24-03-2011 Shri Rajendra Tripathi, counse| Shri Rahul Tamaskar. counsell This petition has been filed 1676/08 whereby it was ordered that decided by the concerned authorityj law, within a period of four weeks order. for the petitjoner. for the respondents. aiieging disobedience of order dated t is expedient that the representation be on its own merits, in accordance with rom the date of receipt of copy of the Learned counsei for the petitic<ner submits that though at the time, the contempt petition was filed, the fin|ai orders in the representation of the petitioner was noi passed. Howev^r, during the pendency of the petition, finaily, an order has been passed on jn the reply submitted that there was deait with at different ieveis. As be taken after consuiting various finance, some time was consumed. finally, the representation of the petiti <=hl^fd41-l iTFT^f ^ ^S <F^^.k '^3rf^PT3T[^r 23/7/10, by which the representation of the petitioner has been decided. Learned counsel for the respo|idents referring to the averments made Iwas no intention on the part of the respondents to flout the order of the Court. He further submits that the representation was made by the petjtioner to number of authorities and the concerned department received the r^presentation and thereafter, the matter |the decision in the case was required to |departments including department of fhere was difference of opinion between the two departments therefore, sonjie more delay has been caused. On account of repatriation of respondejit no.2, the matter remained pending without any decision and soon after tljie new incumbent joined in the office of school education, the matter was tak^i up for consideration expeditiousiy and ner has been decided. He submits that f^-efeq I-HC-22 ^^y •^ET ^|t<41d^, ^ril^^Ko, f®i<ni^;i< 3Tfit?T ^f^K (^t' <j^^(c)^'U<k/lo ^^ 200 WHCr[T 5h*11<=h 200 'i^sT' STT^T^T f^IW^TT^T 5h^iicb ^if^a Deepti 3^T'^CTI^R "Hft^ ^-?' ^ ^\ whatever delay has been caused in| the same is not deiiberate. Learf caused, the respondents tender same may be accepted in the circunt Taking into consideration the | representation of the petitioner has| the respondents have prayed uncohditional am not inclined to proceed furth^r discharged. The petition is finally di^pose 1 deciding representation of the petitloner, ^ied counsel submits that for the deiay u^iconditionai apology and pray that the ftstances ofthe case. |cause shown for deiay and that finally the been decided and also considering that apology for the deiay caused, 1 in the matter. The rule is therefore chl^f<yl41t1 'RFT^if ^ f^3t ^^K '^'^f^W^Tr^T Sd/- Manindra IVIohan Shrivastava Judge r^ -^fe^ s'