HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARfL^ILASPUR PETITIONER '(!..,..'••. ^" Cpntempt^ase (Cl No. 286 of 2009 Satish Prakash Singh, S/o Late Shri Ram Khilawan Singh, aged about 38 years, working as Upper Division Teacher (Suspended) Govt. Higher Secondary School, Tuman, Bloek- Kartala, District - Korba (C.G.) R/o near Jaistambh, Kududand, Ward No.2, Vishnu Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Vs. RESPONDENTS Conteinnors Dr. B.S. Anant (I.A.S.), The Commissioner, Aadim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Shri Ashok Agrawal (I.A.S.) The Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) (Contempt Petitipn under Article 215 ofthe Constitution oflndia read_wjth Section 12 of the Conteinpt ofCourtsAct) Appearance: Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Jha, Advocate for the respondents. ORALORDER (19.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, Heard. Petition, Satish Prakash Singh, has filed fhis petition for initiation of proeeedings of contempt against the respondents for the willful disobedience of order dated 22.7.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3672/2009. This Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition passed the following order:- Counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued for deciding the appeal pendlng before the Collector within some time frame. CounseF for the respondents/State submits thaf if the appeal preferred by the petitkiner is still pending before "respondent No. 2, the same shall be decided expeditiously. Contemot Case CCT No. 286 of2009 Accordingly, the petition is disposed ofwith a direction that if the appeal preferred bythe petitioner is sfill pending, the same is expected to be decided byrespQndent No.2 within a period.of two months from the date of receipt of copy pf this order." Mr. Rakesh Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the appeal pending before respondent No.l has already been disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2009 and order passed by this Court has been complied with, however there is some delay in compliance of the aforesaid order. He submits that the delay in disposal ofthe aforesaid appeal has been duly explained by respondent No. 1 vide Para-4 of the counter affidavit. Respondent No.l has stated on oath that the concemed records were not available in the office of Commissioner and fhey were kept with the office of Collector. Those records were called in the office of Commissioner and in the said process some time got consumed, due to which, the order of the High Court was not complied within the stipulated period granted for the same. •> The explanation offered by respondent No. 1 appears'to be reasonable. In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, when the order has already been complied with by respondent No.l and the delay stands explained, I am not inclined to proceed further in this matter for intiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents. The petition has no merit, fhe same is liable to be dismissed and is herebydisraissed. ' SunU Kumar Sinha Judge