^^Bi- @ UIGHjCQURTOF CHHATTI.SHGARH. CONTEMFT CASE •fC) No. 2 of2010 P@I©ffiRS 1. Kaiim Rijv-i, S/o S.A. Barj, about 57 years, C/'o Amin Cycie Store, Kachahari Chowk, Dhamta", District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Taturam Nirmalkar, S/o Sukhta!, aged 'bout 51 years, R/o Nayapara Ward, tejrang Chowk, Dhamtari, Disfict Raipur (C.G.) i.K. Dongre, Chief Municipa! Officer, Municipal Counci! Dhamtari, District (aipur (C.G.) APT PETITION UNDER ARTJCLE 21S OF THI CONSTn-UTION OF INDIA WITH CONTEMFT OF COURT ACT 1971) »earance: Mr. Vinod Deshmukh & Mr. Sandeep Agrawal, Advocates for the •stitjoneri None r'or the respondent. (08 .01.201^ >UNH- KUM^ J. Heard on admission. The petitioners have filed this petition for initiation of proceed.ings for contempt against the respondenf on the ground that the respondent has not decided the representation till date and thereby violated the order dated 22"° of June, 2009 passed in Vv.P.(S) No. 2918/2009. White disposing the W.P.(S) No. 2918/2009, this Court the folfowing order:- "1. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner, on instruc-tions, submits thst the petitioner does not want to contest this petition on merits at thjs stage. However, the petifioner jiberty of this Court to make a representation before th< concerned authority i.e. fhe respondent No.2 fo.r \ consideration of his to regularize his semce in IJght pf , \ the poiicy decision dated 5.3. 2008. Contemct Case fC'i Kn. ?. of 2010 2. VVithouS expressing any opinion on merits of the case, if the petitloner makes a representation before the respondenfe No.2, the same may be considered in accordance vvith policy decislon dated 5.3.2008, on its own merits, as expeditiously as possiDie. 3. !n viaiV of the foregoing, this petition of. 4. !f the respondent No.2 has any yrievance by this order of the Court, the respondent No.2 is at liberty to make an apptication for amendment/modlfication, if necessary." Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that after passing the said order, the representation vvas fi!ed on 30.6.2009 but no decision has been taken tiil date. A perusal of Para-2 of the order wouid shov-? that this Court has not }iven any time bound direction to the respondent to dispose of the representation, therefore, there does not appear any violation of the order dated 22.6.2009. If the respondent has not the said representation till it would not amount to vioiation or wHlful default in compliance of the above order passed by this Court so as to issue a notice of contempt against him at this stage. Accordingly, 1 do not find any reason to proceed against the respondent in contempt at this stage. The Contemjx Case (C) No. 2/2010, therefore, is dlsmissed at the motion stage itself, s"ni)KumarSinha