iii I.18 :K |i l^ § N IN 1<W 8 I 03 1i I I I g1 I ^ <$.^A;, '\"^\^ '^ ^ ^\v; ^ iS 1^0 i p. Efe' 1 ! ^or i8 1 sso sy? !'§ @ BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.03 16:42:16 +0530 /^••\ f <-^i "'M. ^ <v ^ HIGH CO'URT OF CHHATTISGARH l BILASPUR S.B. s SHRI MANINDRA MOHAH SHRIVASTAVA.J. Cp&tempt CaseiCtvVI,Np,402/20_l_l PETITIONER CONTEMNOR Smt. Hukum Vasnik Versus M.S. Paraste CoHtenapt Case u/S 12 ofthe Conten&pt of the Coiirts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 pf the ConstitutioE of India Appearance: Shri Sanjeev Banjare, counsel for tlie petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, counsel for the respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 16.12.2011) Heard. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner allegin^ wiltful disobedience of the order dated 23.9.2011 passed in W.P. (S)No.5704/2011. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that. the petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging order dated 8.9.2011 passed by tlie Assistant Commissioner, Trlbal Welfare Department, by which, charge of the petitioner for the post of Superintendent, Pre-Matric Girls Hostel, Mainpur was withdrawn, Vide order dated 23.9,20115 writ petition was -7- •^, ^ •.1.^-^, ^ @ finally disposed of with a direction to petitioner to make representation before fhe respondent-Commissioner; Tribal Wetfare Department and that in tlie eventuality of makmg representation; the same would be decided by respondent- Commissioner after considering all fhe aspects of fhe case within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of representation. Though representation was submitted on 27.9.2011 before the respondent-contemnor for consideration of fhe representation, no decision was taken on fhe representation within the time stipulated by the Court and for the first tiine, in the reply before this Court, the respondent- conteuinor has come out witii tiie reply that the representation of the petitioner has been fmally decided vide order dated 12.12.2011, which is much after the stipulated period granted by tlie CoLirt and tiiere is no satisfactory explaiiation for fhe delay caused, therefore; the delay is deliberate mid contemnor is liable t.o be pi.inished, 4, On tlie other hand; learned counsel for the conteinnor- respondent, referring to tlie averments made in the reply, submitted that respondent-contemnor had no mtention to either disobey or flout the order of the Court, but, he promptly acted towards disposal of representation as soon as the order of the Court was received in his ofllce on 27.9.2011. He submits that on fhe very next date Le. 28.9.2011, a letter was issued to Asst. Commissioner, Tribal Development, calling for tSie report I and necessary documents which were necessary to take -3- appropriate decision on fhe representation. Thereafter, a notice was given to tlie petitioner to afford her personal hearing and fmally, the matter was taken up for hearing on 12.12.2011 and order was passed. He subraits that the consequence of events and efTorts made by respondent-contemnor, does not show tliat. tliere was any intention to disobey the order of the Court, but time was consumed in seeking necessary mformation and report. from the Asst. Conimissioner. It is averred that fi.irt.her time was consumed in affording an opport.unity of hearing to the petitioner and fixmg a date ofhearmg. He submits that tiie order has been passed on the very date the hearing was afforded to ttie petitioner i.e. 12.12.2011. He further submits the order has been passed in favour ofthe petitioner, by which relief has also been granted to her. 5. Taking into consideration the subniissions which have been made by leanied counsel for the parties and the aveiTiients on record and the circumstances of the case, in the opinion of fhis Court, fhough fhere has been some delay in complying wifh the order of the Court, it does not appear to be deliberate, nor there appears to be any wiUful act of disobedience of order of the Court. On the very next date of the receipt of representation, letter was issued t.o Asst. Commissioner for submitting information and report. The petitioner was given a notice on 23,11,2011, affording her an opportunity of heaiing, The case was adjourned on 8.12.2011 and was again listed on a short 1 date i.e. 12.12.2011 and tlie order passed and the petitioner .. :"^ ;y^^ %:>t- -4- ,^- ^,.. has also been granted reUef, Therefore, I am not inclined to proceed fLirther in the matter. The delay in complying wifh the order of the Court is therefore condoned, Praveen 6. Accordingly, the rule is discharged and fhe petition is nnally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge