^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Contempt Case (C) No.192 of 2009 pETjTiONER RESPONDENT Contemnor Ajit Kumar Lakra, son of Late Rainu Lakra, aged about 38 years, Ex. Service Man, resident of Tukutola, Post Bhitghara, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) Versus Mr. V.KJoshi, Director, Central Reserve Police Force, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 1»^>: CONTEMPT PETiTION UNDER ARTICE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. K.N. Nande, Counsel forthe petitioner. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Counsel for the proposed intervener. ORALORDER (20.04.2010) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. Petitioner - Ajit Kumar Lakra has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against respondent - Mr. V.K. Joshi for the alleged disobedience in compliance of the order dated 27.01.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No.472/2009. This Court while disposing the aforesaid writ petition passed the following order on 27.01.2009: "In view of the above submission of tearned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No.2- Director, C.R.P.F., New Delhi along with this petition and certified copy of this order, for redressal of his grievances raised in this petition. On such representation being made, the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the representation within a period of two months form the date of receipt ofthe representation." Mr. K.N. Nande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the said order by this Court, a 'o^ Contempt Case iC) No. 192/2009 fresh representation was filed on 02.02.2009 and when the same was not decided within the stipulated period of two months, the petitioner had to file this contempt petition on 26.06.2009. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the parties that later on, the representation was decided on 24th of July 2009 and the order was communicated to the petitioner. It is further submitted that against the order dated 24 of July 2009, a writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, which is pending for consideration. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, learned counse! for the proposed intervener submits that the respondent in the contempt petition had moved a MCC for extension of time for deciding the representation on 24.05.2009, which shows that there was no element of willful disobedience on the part of the respondent and the respondent authorities were afways inclined to obey the order passed by this Court. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the circumstance that the representation has already been decided and the outcome of the representation has been challenged before this Court and further that the concerned authority had moved MCC on 24.05.2009 for extension of time, it does not appear that the delay in disposal of the representation was willful so as to constitute a contempt. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not deem it appropriate to proceed further in the matter. In view of the above, the proceedings of contempt are dropped at this stage. 1- Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge shyna