IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE'W" CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) N0. 5^ / 2011 fth Ii"^f '! APPLICANT PETITIONER -\ .< / "yy.^ ^y^ ^' •^o1'1 ^" sp-'.^p ..•••' A'e"' .•'' / fV^/ ^'.^ ^y ^".. ^^ c^c'~ .&'° NON- APPLICANTS RESPONDENT Ramesh Rotkar, aged about 70 years, son of'Shri R.S. Rotkar, ^ Retired Probationary Officer, R/o. C-10, Rohinipura, Goal Chowk, Durg, District Durg Q^^p-rese^-e /9elii^yess- f)ii£i^/<a- /^a^a^.Jiu-'r^ ^. 19-ffl VERSUS 1. Alok Awasthi, aged about 45 years, son of now known to the petitioner, Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.j, 2. K.D.P. Rao, aged about 45 years, son of not known to the petitioner, Secretary, Panchayat and Scoial Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF ,THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT FOR INITIATING OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED - 14'-OG-2010, PASSED IN W.P.(S) N0.3057/2005. 1118 llllt w» ^s. I!' lilli. :!^'li]'!'; }'\^[i lilllr :;ii:L:' ^ r T7 sn^r^ii fk-u* sv^v sh+iicfr yf@a V- Deepit •g^ •^(rai?pri, ^^y'is. r««'ii^i< 31T^?T XR'g? __...d?^t:...&og...^^t'>-'0 •^ "WI. 200 *<1*<MI SKWqi ^^ fq^a" sii^r ^piiwafei SB : HQn'bie Shri Manindra Moha 25-01-2011 Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, couns< Learned counsel for the p< 14/6/2010 passed by this Court in W\ allowed and certain benefits flowed the petitioner though six months hav| Court, inspite of repeated represente|t From the submissions madel appears that after the order has flowing from the order of this Couft petitioner. Though, no time limit w; required to passed orders for gr^nt reasonabie time. At present, in the| to issue notice to the respondents. It is however made ciear th|at required to be complied with expei| case, the orders are not passed by obiigation to compiy with the order 41 -petition, after three months. With the aforesaid observatiot cht-4T<n*Q'r +IHCII* ^ i^%t -(fa-^R ^T Slfitfq SD^T Shrivastava. J. for the petitioner. jtitioner submits that vide order dated tP.(S) No.3057/05, the petition was partiy t>ut the same have not been extended to ^ eiapsedsince order was passed by this jtions made by the pentioner. by learned counsel for the petitioner, it )>een passed by this Court, the benefit has not so far been extended to the |is fixed by this Court, the authorities are of consequential benefits within a Ipresent state of arrairs, 1 am not inclined ihe orders passed by this Court are iitiousiy and within reasonable time. in the concerned authorities, who are under 'f this Court, the petitioner may revive his is, the petition is finaiiy disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^^54 ^ r