BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR n. CONTEMPTCASE (0 N0. V^~T /2011 PETITIONERS ^ 1. Dr Teeku Ram Sinha, S/o Shri Nohar Singh Sinha, aged about 35 years, Assistant Professor, P.S.M Department, Govemment Medical College, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 2. Dr. Khemlal Azad, S/o Shri Sonuram, aged about 38 years, Assistant Professor, Pathology Department, Govemment Medical College, Jagdalpur (C.G.) ,3. Dr. Smt. Shashikala Kashyap, W/o Shri Ashish Kashyap, aged about 34 years, Assistant Professor, Govemment Medical College, Jagdalpur (C.G.) VERSUS RESFONDENT/ Vikas Sheel CONTEMNOR Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) APPLIC?ATION FOR INITIATION OF _CQNTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 12 QF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE'5l5 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA. ^s_ ^ SII^iq^ R-ii?h sn^r St>'H|ch •Ml^rt "^ \-. -S-- yer ^ww-ii, ^Tfly'id, 'f^iray MWVfl %W<*>_..^:..£.—&4i'rl/ 20<i 31(^1'g^lwafeT ISB : Hpn'ble Shri Maniadr4 Shri Chandresh Shrivat Heard on admission. Leamed counsel for tfa4; dated 18.8.2010 passed i^ observed. that at the stage, come to the conclusion decision not to iraplement open for the petitioners to No.l, who shaU be at libert\r| the said representation in ac4 thlat tbe mdke It is submitted that the: respondent. No.l on 29.9.2( decisioii was taken, a writ which has been dismissed recpurse to appropriate tbrun Leamed counsel tbr respondent, by not takin< committed wiUfi.d disobedienlce . argued that the spirit of fh^ decide as to whetherthe selei] <*wl<')^-< 'qFRTf '9 fS^t <f«t(^l< ^; aipgii sn^t Eoh.an Shrivastava. J.1 .tava, counsel for the petitioners. petitioners submits that vide order W.P.(S) No.4632/10, this Coi-ut Iftiere is no material for fhe Court to the respondents have taken a seiect list and fhat it would be representation before respdndent to take fhe appropriate decision on iordance with law. j-eafter a representation was made to 10 (Annexiire C-2), but, when no tietition was filed before the Coiu-t, ^LS wiQidrawn wifh liberty to take pie petitioners submits that the any decision m the matter, has of order dated 18.8.2010. It is order required fh.e respondent to ;t list should be iiaplement.ed or not [^ ni^- _^ ,<-i^^^. an^r^i Pi-fii* SII^SI g?tiwgl5ti E'raveen •ysi ^ii<i<ic)4, ^Til'y'ld. i»<''ii«y t(IHCTf Sh*<|eS '^ 200 3(1^1 ^RIIWHf?? -2 and b}r not taking any respondent has flouted the dec|sion whatsoever tn the matter, ord^r of the Court. I am not tnclitied to a< counsel for fhe petitioners. Th^ this Court does not in tgrms i^ respondent. to decide the repre^ is fhat it would be open for fhe before respondent No.l, wh| appropriate decision. In case, no decision is would mean arbitrar}r tn actio|n, certainly, it cannot be said tc| order passed by this Court on ]|8.8.2010. fmld Accordingly, I do not sam.e iiable to be disruissed scs\ admission stage. Certified copy by tomorro^. ^i^i^41Ti ^n^t'iT ^ Is^l <1^t'^i< ^STPgq 311^1 ;cept this contention of leamed order dated 18.8.2010 passed by isue a mandamus or command to ientation. Ali. that has been stated ^etltioners to make representation 3 shaU be at libert\7 to take Itaken. irresoective of whether it ., giving rise to cause of action, be a wQU'ul disobedience of fhe any merit in the petition. The id is accordinRlv dismissed at fhe Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava judge ITT^' ^31 ^