\A '^ .svi3"\ f""i f^^r-t^ yysw-R IN THE HON'BLE HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPTJ'I^^^-NO. ^S OF 2011 PETETIONER r./ •^y ^ ^M^ ^>>y <<*1^ESPON&ENT Contemnors CONTEMPT RAMPYARE SIN6H S/o Prayag, aged about 66 years, R/o 6ram Panchayat Bhanora, Janpad Panchayat & Tahsil Balrampur, Distn'ct: Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS MAfcJsiNSH THAKUR S/o Jeevrakhan Lal Thakur, The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Wadraf Nagar, bistrict: Surguja C.6.) UNDER ARTCCLE 215 OF THE CONSTCTUTEON OF INblA 1950 CT^I^I R'li* sn^i sh+lich ^f?rt SB: Hon'bleShri ^St "lll^ld^l, ^Tflti'ld, ('ICIKiy WtRIT »1*<1*..G.^.r.^..cc4/^ ^ an^r^eiwgfCT 25.4.2011 Shri G. I .Sharan, coun|se Heard on adinission. This petition has been disobedience of the order d; Court inW.P. (C) No.565/09.1 Leamed counsel for tt compliaat of the petitioner, Sugiya and a show cause] (Annexure Pl). The Sub Divj The initiation of enqtitry and to challenge by fiHng W.P. (< nierits of fhe case, the Coui fresh enquiry tn a transp]aren opportunit;7 of hearing to thi| obseryed that it would be p| Ofiicer is appointed a.s enquirj Leamed coi.msel for order was oassed on 13itl 'bllfl'l'fl-l TTO^f 4 fecZt iPfltdK ^? sifigir sn^i |sel for the petitioner. pled by the petitioner alleguig willfi.il [ted 13th July, 2009 passed by tliis ]ie petitioner submits that on the |enquiry' was tnitiated agaiast Smt. notice was issued on 3.12.2008 ]isional Officer initiated an enqutry. the show cause notice was subiected No.565/09. After considering the ift. found fhat it was proper t.o hold )|arent manner after aflbrdmg an writ petitioner. The Court ftsrther i|~ope.r tf some other Sub Divisional ^' officer to conduct a fair enquiiy. ]ie petitioner submits that. ttiough |July, 2009, ti.n date, there is no [Tft^ ^s^ .fj 1 J / XI-HC-22 °hSc-r.sy ,f SIKWqiT f<-fi;* 3Ilt?l ?h'R ^riin ^ Praveea ^Sf ^IRRTq, 'SrftWT®.^WI'yy .\: WW sbflch sn^i's^iWHfei progress in the enquiry, even been appointed. Either ,ui the petition arguments, learned counsel fc|r Court as to the date on whicll appointed. The representatj Commissioner has been submit ft>r In this view of the matli specilic time liniit prescribed not incltaed to issue notice however, has to be obseive(|l prescribed, fhe newly appointefd enquiry ivithin reasonable In case, the enquiry is petitioner would be at liberty tcj peri(|)d n<bt With fhe aforesaid obs disposed of. A copy of fbis order be s ^ Officer. chi^ic']4iTi^Hcil'':^T^1L^t <^-^.i< i? aif^ sii^i fhough a new enquir^r officer has or even during the course of the petitioner could not tell flie the new enqutiy ofucer has been on of the petitioner to the ledon 24.9.2010. ler, particularly when there is no completion ofthe enquiry, I am to respondent at. this stage. It, that even if no time limit is enquiry officer is obliged to hold concluded within 3 months, the revive the petition. avations, the petition is finally int to respondent -Sub Divisional Manindra Mohan Shrivastava 1^^ ^