HS.GH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR.H, BILASPUR ' CONTEMPT CASE jC I NoJ1/2010 PETmONgRS of RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR 1 Sambooram Baghei, son Bhursu Ram, aged about 39 years, Ward Boy, Maharani Hospita!, JagdaSpur, Chhattlsgarh 2 Rai Singh Thakur, son of Late Jagbandho Slngh Thakur, aged about 50 years, Ward Boy, Maharani Hosplta!, Jagdaipur, Chhattlsgarh Versys Dr. U.S. Paikra, Joint Dlrector cum SuperiFitendent, Go-4. MedicaS Coliege, Maharans Hospital, Jagdai'pur, Chhattlsgarh CONST!TVnON_OFJMDjA Aspearance.: Mr. CJ.K. Rao, Counsel torthe petjtioners^ PRALORDER (20.07.2010) Heard. The petitioners 'have t'ijed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for wiJlfui dlsobedjence of the order dated 21 st of January 2010 passed inVV.P.(S)No.299/2010. This Court whiie disposing of the aforesai'd writ petition passed the foSiowing order vide para 8: "8. In view of the above this petitlon stands dlsposed of. !t is dlrected that the concemed/authoritles shali conslder and declde the case of the petitloners and may an appropnate order, In accordance with iaw within a period of 6 weeks from the date of recelpt of a copy of this order. No order asto costs." /^^SS.ES^ //e^~v\. f/' '..^ SSS^^ ^. \. ^^' Leamed counsel for the petitioners submrts that since the order was not compiied with. the petitioners had to file this contempt petltion. However, during the course of arguments, he submits that the representation was decided on11.06.2010. The repiy on behalf of tne respondent is fijed. it is stated in the repiy that the matter jn fact pertalns to the Director, Heaith Services and the office of the respondent had sent appropriate communication to the Director, Health Services through proper channej and the decision was to be taken from the sald oft'ice. He has submitted that on his immediate efforts, the order dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure R/1) was passed, therefore, there is no wiilful disobedience on his part. Considering the facts and .circumstances of the case, particularjy consldering that the representation has aiready been decided, as stated by iearned counsel for the petltsoner, and the delay was not on the part of the answering respondent, I am of the opinlon that the proceedsngs for contempt shouid now be dropped. Accordingiy, the proceedings of contempt are dropped. ' r—' Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge