-'-^-/••VV-.no IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case fC) No. IC^ PETITIONERS (^V l] /2011 ^in^l.^ 'fi^S^^^ ,^. ^A ,c°\y./^ ^y./0/' ^,-"^ A /^ /'/' <^/y RESPONDENTS Bheshajlal Kolkatti, S/o. Dukaluram, aged about 51 years, R/o. Nandorkala, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2] Yashwant Kumar Sahu, S/o. Gendram Sahu, aged about 53 years, R/o. Ramsagarpara, Raipur, District Raipur VERSUS 1] Surgious Minj, Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2] H.P. Kindo, Addition^l Secretary holding the charge of Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE21S OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1071 ^ mGH CCWItT OF GIfflATTISGARH : BILA^UR S^i HON»BLEBHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. PETITIONERS Contempt Case (Ct No.103 of 2011 Bheshajlal Kolkatti & one another Versus RESPONDENTS Surgious Minj & one another Contempt Petition under Article 2t5 of tlie Cionstitution of India r/w Section 10 of the Contemot of Courts Act, 1971 Appearance: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioners. ORALORDBR (Passed on 25.3.2011) Heard on admission. 2. By this petition, ftie petitioners pray for initlation of contempt proceedings against respondents, alleging disobedience of order dated 1.10.2Q10 passed in W.P. (S) No.4917/08 & order dated 12.11.2010 passedmW.P. (S) No. 1229/10. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits tliat order dated 1.10.2010 stated above, was passed on a statement made before the Court by the State counsel that preparation is being made to convene D.P.C. and it is likely to be held very soon,and in every Ukelihood, fhis would be done within 4 months. He sublnlts that on such statement made in the Court, fhe petitipn was finaUy disposed of, recording that- it is expected from the respondents to hold the D.P.C. witliin 4 months. He submits that thereafter, -2- ^ anofher order was passed on 12.11.2010 as stated above, on fhe simUar Unes ofthe order passed on 1.10.2010. LeamedGounsel for'the petitioners submits fhat even thpugh this Court had expected and ftie respondent had stated that the exercise would be undertaken in 4 monfhs, till date no D.P.C. Ilas been convened. 4. The order dated 1.10.2010 shows that fhe State Govt. made statement ttiat tn every Ukelihood, steps for convening fhe D.P.C. would be taken wittun 4 months. The Court, therefore, disposed of the petition, expectmg that the DPC would be held within 4 monfhs. In fhe opinion of this Court, at this stage, it cannot be said fhat the respondents have committed any contempt. The statement made by fhe State counsel was that in all likelihood, steps would be taken. There is no specillc direction by the Court. Therefore,! am not inclined to initiate any eontempt proceedings at this stage. It is, however, to be noted fhatwhen such statement are made in fhe Court, fhe State is requtred to keep fhe same in muid and take appropriate action as per the statement made in the Court.In case, it is found that no steps are beingtaken for substantially long time, ttie petitioners woiild be at liberty to file fresh petition. 5. With the aforesaid observations, fhe petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- MamndraMohanShriv^va Judge Praveen