BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT PETITION N0. /2008 H^.KGI xaseaf PETITIONER .....s..ia-/:f ^£^- RESPONDENT Dr. S.K. Joel, S/o. Moses Joel, aged about 50 years, Aurvedic Medicial Officer, Government Aurvedic Dispensary, Mana, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS G.S. Badesha, Director, Indian System of Medicine & ^—Homeopathy, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur(C.G.) ./•' CONTEMPT PETITION U/A 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ Wn-H SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPTS OF COURTS ACT ';n:^ir 1 3TI^?!'?iT R-ti.i* sn^i sn^i^ ^fF^T '3^? "41'i)l(Y1''l, a'cii'y'is, f'lcii'yy Wq?ffgi*fra»(^4 "f^ i^ 'S^/2<^>? 200 sn^i'FR'IW ^ritB <*i'l<(f)4)-i iitifil' •? is<S ^T3^gH3iI^I SB : Hon'bleShri Manindra MphanJShrivastaya, J, 15-03-2011 Shri A. K. Prasad, counsel for Shri P. S. Koshy, counsel for i^spondent. Pursuant to order passed by the respondent/contemnor is also pr^sent in person. The petitioner has alleged passed in W.P.(S) No.7293 of 2007J representation of the petitioner may a period of four weeks from the red 1/iolation of order dated 12-12-2007 wherein this Court observed that the t?e considered and disposed offwithin ^ipt of the representation, if any. It is submitted that though the represerftation was submitted on 17-12-2007 along with a copy of order, which w^s received by the respondent on 24- 12-2007, the matter remained pendi not forward the application of the pet unduly for a long time, which shows| order of the Court to be complied wi| time stipulated, which amounts to flo^ On the other hand, learned that the representation of the petij Ayurvedic Officer and was receivei| order on 23-02-2008 deciding repre^ |he petitioner. hisCourt on the last date of hearing, ig mainly because the respondent did tioner to the State Government i.e. the competent authority 'in the matter. Ifle submits that the file was retained that the respondent did not allow the h by the State Government within the iting of order of the Court. ;ounsel for the respondent submitted ioner was forwarded by the District in the office of the respondent on 24-12-2007 and the same was forWarded to the State Government on 05-02-2008 along with the note she^t whereafter the State has passed an entation of the petitioner. He submits that though some delay has been c^used in forwarding the representation of the petitioner to the State Gov^rnment, he submits that it was not [^^fe^t ^\ 'fc. -s-~t&f.>22 sS' /S- 'teB'*^ 'y. i't'.'" '^-.v.'s'^-' 's'^ "'4i^livl''<, ^Til'y'ito, fa^iyy ?. Cbi^t. (/eri~,ir^^ .^ fc/2.L/<> W?V tbKW'"""""""""""""""""""^ 200 311^7 ^iT r<'fi?b 31lt?I sh^licb •Sf^tt <=hl<l[ci4l'1 ^Rdi''^ Fs^l <^1-^t< ^siPgirsn^T intentional but only an inadvertent m were forwarded by the respondent, filed and the notices were issued. hli has been caused due to retention istake. He submits that the note sheets ^venbefore the contempt petition was ^ also submits that for the delay, which of the file from 24-12-2007 to 05-02- 2008, unconditional apology has pra^ed for. Taking into consideration the for the parties and also taking into submission made by learned counsel onsideration the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent t|iat though there has been delay on the part of the respondent in taking stefjs and further taking into consideration the totality of thecircumstances, 1 ai|n not inclined to proceed further in the matter as even before filing of the ;ontempt petition, the respondent had forwarded the case of the petitioner fjo the Secretary on 05-02-2008. Rule is therefore discharged. The petition is finally disposecj off.^iy— Tumane