^\ IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESSARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE fCIVIL) N0. 3o. lltiaN^ SWsCi' of 2011 PEnnoNER «.- VERSUS RESPON&ENT/ CONTEMNOR Smt. Urmila Choubey, aged about 52 years, W/o Shri Ramkant Choubey, Assistant Teacher, 6ovt. Primary Boys School, Rajpuri, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Shri Sanjay Gupta, bistrict Education Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTETUTION OF INNA REAb WITH SECTION 10.12.14 of CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1971. ^ sn^rv R;-'!'* '^ETT3iT^?T sft^l^ ^ WH^trgi^iah S^T'-qrai^T, g>Tl1'H'16, [stCTiyy ...<'LJt;...^.^(D.'.1^- s.&%/') TH; 200 SH^T'q^i'C TOIIWHftaCT^I SB : Hon'Die snri manindra tVionait <^I^4l4 TTR^ff ^f t^ST T^T^ ^aiRpTsn^l snrivastava. J. 07-09-2011 Shri Rahui iviishra, counsel fo| Learned couiisei for the petitl passed in Vv'.P.(s) No.2127/11, thev( • the petitioner. loner submits that vide order dated 25/4/2011 rrit petition niea DV tne Detitioner was aisDosea off on the submission made by the iearned State counsei that the representation of the petitloner wiii be considered ana decided in accordance Vi'ith iaw and in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwal v. municipai uorporation. uura ana Bnotner reponed in ^uug U!i MP>JK ye (uui and Goeesh Kymar Verma _v. .P.i'S') No.4130/05, within a peri({id of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation, subject to verificat representation aiong with the order 4r the Court were submitted in the office of th® District Education Officer, Ambikapitr on 23/5/2011. but tili date no decision has oeen taKen. l ne writ petjtion nied by tnel made by the State counsei. The suDmittea in tne omce OT tne Distnct The petitioner shall approach ne snaii De inrormea Dersonaliy DV 1 --,''• inrorm tne petitioner in writing withini as to whether the .decision has beeri per tne oraer or tne (jourt. in case, The State of Chhattisaarh and another. on of the facts. it Is submitted that the petitioner was disposed off on a statement reDresentation is aiso stated to have been Education Oificer on 23/5/20' ne oraer of the Court obiiaes the District Educaijon Officer to decide the representation of the petitioner in accoraance wim tne aireptlons given Dy tnis uourt. the District Educatlon Officer, Ambikapur and wav or representation tnat ne is required to declde the representation of the p^titioner. The District Education Officer shali mree aays or tne receipt or copy or inis order taKen on petrtioner's representation or not as no decision is taken on the reDresentation of • ^»gyA"sa^-^, XI-HC—78 *ii*i<ir sb<n^» 'S^ '^wivi''i, yal'H'i®,fsifliyy ..Cs^.:. ..(J^..^l^_2&%[i' }') sn^r 'vsv ('°?f3;5i^i?) 3II^TW1?:'W TTETC S^^f sh^ic^ Deepti t^IRR ^fCT STI^ft 5 ^NwftT'WRff ^f fe^ft'(fSre^R' ^siRnsii^r the Detitioner bv the District Educatioh Offlcer, AmblkaDur, serious conseauences I wiii follovi/ and the District Education shali be iiabie for stern action. if the petitioner aoes not receive anv response reoard ina aecision of ner case in 1& aavs rrom the date of submission of copy of thi^ order, she would be at liberty to revive this petltion. With the aforesaid ob^.ervations / directions, tne petitjon is rinally aisposea ? Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge I