•.p" A-65 % 18.08.2011 Present: Mr. M.A. Ansari, Petitioner-in-person. Mr. D.S. Mahendru, Sr. Govt. Counsel with Wing Commander Ashish Tripathi for the respondent. +Cont. Cas.(C) No. 619/2011 * On an advance notice, learned counsel for the respondent has appeared. The copy of this petition has been handed over to the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the ' respondents under instructions from the department states that as per the directions contained in the order dated 29.04.2011, the representations dated 08.10.2010 and 07.05.2011 of the petitioner shall be disposed of with an outer limit of three weeks from today. No further orders are called for in this petition. Petition is disposed. ^ r Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master to the counsel for the respondent. INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 18, 2011 i , . . / rb CPy. /.j I -S f Cf'C - Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 2— A-67 % 09.09.2011 Present: Mr. M.A. Ansari, Petitioner-in -person. Mr. D.S. Mahandru, Sr. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. +CM No. 16922/2011 in Cont. Cas.(C) NO. 619/2011 * This is an application seeking revival of the contempt petition; the ground is that the representation of the petitioner which had been filed under Section 161 Sub-clause 2 of the Air Force Act, 1950 has been decided by the Director to the Government of India, namely, Anjali Singh. V' This Section postulates that this petition has to be decided by the Central Government. A perusal of this Section i.e. Section 161 Sub-Clause 2 of the Air Force Act, 1950 states that the order on the application under Section 161 Sub-Clause 2 of the Air Force Act may be presented to the Central Government, Chief of the Air Staff or any other prescribed officer superior in command to the one who may confirm such finding or hf' sentence, and the Central Government, Chief of the Air Staff or other officer, as the case may be, may pass such order thereon as it or he thinks fit. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, states that the Director to the Government of India, namely, Anjali Singh was delegated to pass such an order by the Ministry of Defence. This application is not maintainable; it is dismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J. SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 rb