INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cji^e.Cc? CONTEMPT EE^PFTON N0. l^l5 /2011 il@ Ben^ RETITIONER ^ ^•^ ^o^^s^-rr IESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS 1. ^^mt. Sanjana Raj, W/o. Shri Anish Raj, Aged about 40 years, Occupation- Service, Assistant Grade-II in the Office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Develop- ment, Durg (C.G.). VERSUS Mr.M.S. Paraste, Aged about 50 years Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raipur (C.G). 2. Mr. Bhagirathi Banjare, Aged about 53 years, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Durg, District Durg (C.G.). ^^ CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION READ WITH SECTION 10 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : PETITIONER RE3PONDENTS CONTEMPT fC) N0. 1 25 OF 2011 Srrst. Sanjgna Raj Versus Mr. M.S. & Another 9 (Contempt Petitlon under Artide 21 5 of the Constitutlon read with Sectlon 10 & 12 of the contempt of Court Ac-t) Slngle Bench : Hon'ble Shrl Manlndra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Present:" Shri Ashok ShuWa, Advocate for the petltjoner. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on thls 15 day of Aprii, 2011 ) 1. Thls petjtlon has fjled by the petitioner dlsobsdience of the order 20-1-2010 passed by the coordjnate bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4080/2009 (Smt • Sasijana Raj v. of Chhattisgarh & Othefs). learned counsei appearing for the petlticner submitted that vide order 20-1-2010, the Impugned order 14-7-2009 quashed and the Commissioner, Department of Trlbai Welfare, Rajpur, was to consider the of the petitloner afresh and proper ordere, In wlth !aw in view ofttie provlslons of Fundamental Rules 26 (b) (ii). Learned oounsel further that even ths Commlssioner into correspondences vlde Annexure C/3. C/4 & C/5 with tne Commlssloner, he 3iad not sny oraer and now tha Incumbent i.e. respondent No.,1 has office ofthe Commjssloner, but he has also not any ordertiil date. 4. Thougn, It has not in the petitlon, 't has oraJiy that the new Incumbent has joined the office of the Commissloner in the month of January, 2011. In the petitlon; 1 do not find that the petitioner has any representation to the new Incumbent in the office of Commissioner to bring to hls notice regardJng comptiance of the orderdated 20-1-2010,, !n view of foregoing, the petitloner msy submit the representatlon to the new Commissloner bringing to his notlce that he js required to comply with the order passed by this Court In W.P.(S) (Smt. Ra] v. of & Otfiers) m Its and letter. In case, the of the petitloner has not by the respondent No.1 wjthin reasonabie period i.e. two months from the of of a copy of thls order, the petitioner wouid be at iiberty to revive the petltion. —-:•——-— Accordingly, this petjtlon is disposed ( ..'' Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^own