^ IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Ci 7% z^\ CONTEMPT I»EJH^N-(C) NO.^f of 2010 '&— IN THE MATTER OF: W.P. (s) No.1563/2010 Petitioner: M/s M.t). Industries Versus Respondents: State of C.6. & other-s \\^. aS.t"" APPLICAMJ,: -\ —^9TtT^S'^ "'"''^'•^^ M/s M.D. Industn'es, through its Managing Partner Shri Ritesh Pinjani, son of Shri M.[). Pinjani, aged 28 yeo.rs, resident of 21-E, Kaliparade, Industr-ial Estate, Opp. Union Carbide, Berasia Road, Bhopal (MP). Shri S.K. Paswan, Director' (Seneral of Jail, Jai] Headquar'ter, Raipur (C6). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1973 READ WITH ARTIGLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IN&IA. !•;»,., ^ HIGH COURT OF CaHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HOITBLE SHRI BIANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. J. Contempt CaselCl No.261 oi'2010 PETITIONER M.D. Industries Versus RESPONDBNT Shri S.K. Paswan Contemnor Petltion u/S 12 ofthe Contempt of Courts Act, 1973 r/wAryde 215 ofthe Constitution oflndla Appearance: Shri Manish Thakur, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.D. Vaswani, counsel for the respondent. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 24.02.2011) Heard. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by fhe petifioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 2nd August, 2010 passed by this Court m W.P. (C) No. 1563/10. 3. Leamed counsel for tfae petitioner submits that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1563/10 disposed of fhe petition filed by the petitioner on 2nd August, 2010, wherein, it was observed that the Court is not inclined to mterfere on merits and the petitioner should move a representation before the respondent No.2 thereui. It was further observed that the representation shaU .-c^^ //' a. :ff-~. .y's' 1<6».,^ ^SS3'1' -2- be decided with a speaking order, di-ity commuiiicated to fhe petitioner, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two monfhs from fhe date of production of a copy of fhe order alonj with copy of representation m.oved earlier, as the case inay be. Leamed coxuisel for the petitioner submits that after fhe order of this Court was passed, a representation was made on 9.8.2010 (Annexure C-2) to fhe respondent, which was received in his offlce on 11.8.2010. It was followed by another representation dated 31.8.2010 and reminder dated 15.9.2010, but fhe same was not decided wittun the period of 2 months as stipulated tn fhe order dated 2nd August, 2010. He submits that by not deciding the representation, as directed by the Court, respondent flouted the order of the Court and is therefore liable for being proceeded agatnst for contempt offhe order ofthe Court. 4. On the ofher hand, leamed counsel for the respondent, refemng to the averments made in fhe reply, submitted that as soon as the representation of the petitioner was received, along with copy of the order of tfae Court, a letter was written on 4.9.2010 (Annexure CR-2) to fhe Principal Secretaiy, Department of Home (Jail), seekmg insfaT.iGtions with regard to earty payment of outetandmg dues.to the petitioner. As there was no response from the State, a letter was sent on 22.9.2010 (Annexiire CR-3) followed by another letter dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure CR-4). Request was made that tnstnictions may be given expeditiously so fhat the representation of fhe petitioner could be decided in view of fhe order passed by irF"! ••<« .,.a»^ t :f i....'^»*%ii 1 ^ 'i^'-^ j i'.-v ^ -3- ^^'J ts: f ^ ^' the Court. FinaUy, a letter dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure CR-5) was sent to tfae petitioner informing him that enquiry is in progress at the State level and unless the enquuy is completed, it wUl not be possible for fhe office of the respondent to make payment to fhe petitioner. It was followed by anofher letter dated 25.11.2010, informu^ fhe petitioner that as fhe matter is pending at fhe State level, it wUl not be possible to inake payment unless enquiry is completed. 5. In fhe order dated 2nd August, 2010, fhe Division Bench of this Court had directed that tf representation is made, the matter shall be decided by a speaking order wifhin a period of 2 monfhs from the date of production of copy of the order. The respondent vide his letter dated 11.11.2010 (Annexiire CR-5) and dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure CR-6) has informed fhe petitioner in response to his representation. The reason assigned for non- payment is fhat the matter is pending enquiry at fhe State level and unless the enquiry is coinpleted, no payment can be made. Therefore, in fhe optnion of fhis Court, fhe respondent has complied wifh fhe order. Though fhere is delay and the same has not been decided wifhin a period of 2 months as directed by fhis Court, considering the circumstances and spectflc averment made in the reply that several letters were issued to the State i.e.4.9.2010, 22.9.2010, 18.10.2010 & 3.11.2010 to fhe State Oovenunent and then petitioner was communicated the reason jjjir-l l rf/"tf ^'.- . y R -4- v^ for non-release of payment, I am not mclined to proceed further in fhe matter. 6. The rule is therefore dischai^ed and the petition is accordii^ly finaUy disposed of. —— —- Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen