IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [C.G.1 1^6&e^NO. CONTEMPT M.o /2011 PETITIONER Ravindra Kumar Jagat S/o Kiinj Ram Jagat Aged-about 32 years, R/o ,, Village- Katghari, Tahsil- Akalatara, o^' ...•••''w.y''''" -o'"'*' _. ~ - ..~ ^•••""oXS"v' ^--"\"\ Distt.- Janjgir- Champa [C.G.] ^••'.^ /••" VERSUS ^v ...... ,^* ^^5- '^••<../•• J\' ;., RESPONDENTS Devi Lal Gupta 35ty^ a ^ -<- Director, Caste Scrutiny conunittee, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhayay Nagar, Near PMT Hostel, Raipur [C.G.] CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION '12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA The above nainecL netitu-u-ie. ^+,_1^.-—L1— sn^r^i R-fi'* SfS^l 9b^icn ^[ea 's^ '^IHRPT, dTil'y'i'o, ficii'yy an^r •q^ra? :....&9..^1C)^^E>/ *<INCTI %l)|cb 200 iq^a' 3(I^T ^^TWHfSCT SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra iWo 08-02-2011 Shri Sanjay Patel, counsei for the petitioner. Meara. 'his petition has been file<|l 30/10/09 passed inW.P.(C) No.6p39/09. Learned counse! for tne earlier approached this Court b^ wherein this Court, disposed offi approach the committee with r^quisite documents and copy of the order witnin a perioa OT one weeK an; necessary proforma ofthe appiic^ day. Learned counsei for the pe1 verification was provided to the ^ without any decision on the petii submits that even though this wa^ time and therefore. inis is a case A perusal of order da verification document is not be Scrutlny Committee, this Court i petltioner on the day, requisite do «bi'i|(<'t'iil-< ^Wvfi 4 feTSt <I»]<$1< ^rsrfSgHsn^r lan snnvastava, j. aileging wiilful disobedience of order dated letitibner submitted that the petitioner had way of filing aforementioned writ petition the petition with iiberty to the petitioner to further directed the committee to provide ition for verification of the caste on the same itioner submitted that though apptication for >etitioner, the matter has remained pending loners status ror more man one year. Me not specificaily worded in the order, but the respondent authority were obligejd to decide the matter within a reasonabie t>f wilifui disobedience. jed 30/10/09 shows that ths petitioner approached the Court ventiiat|ig his grievance that the proforma of ng provided to him. in the tight of the statement made by couns'ei apjpearing on behaif of the Director, Caste |ad directed issuance of appiication to the atuments are submitted. it is not a case of the p^titioner that a proforma of the verification docurpent was not supplied. M^y be thai the respondent authority has not ^^s^ .-^ .-^^-^s,/ yy^. "^ [-HC-22 K 'v v":,^ '"^.-. f' ^y ''''•^?^.^:^^'" sn^i^ir h-U'h S^V St)^icf) ^rlf^^ Deept' 'Svf -^WM^, ©Til'y'is,hdl'uy SV^ XR^; IIHfll ^KWK .<ij....'..^.^r)^'^6/" "g^ 200 'fsre^T""""" sn^r ^ttw ^ificT 5- decided the matter and the matter] this Court, in the absence of any within a stipulated period, mere disobedience of'order dated 30/1 No.6239/09. Therefore, 1 am not i| The petition is accordingly dismiss^d has remained pending, in the opinion of ^pecific direction to conciude the enquiry cjeiay would not by itsei^constitute wiiiful (0/09 passed by ihis Court in W.P.(C) hciined to issue notice to the respondent. '*i'i|f<'f41") iiicil'ii fe'st <fa«i< ^;3rfitm3TI^I Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge f^ 'efe^ .y