,V-.-^-^YV-<--^^"L 5 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (<<Z- OF 2011 cnse, CONTEMPT PETm^N (C) No. PETITIONER f^^-:^ss^^c T^: CONTEMNOR ^Rajendra Prasad Tondon, S/o Late Shri N. Tondon, Aged about 53 years, Police Inspector, Farsegarh, Police District Beejapur, South Bastar, Chhattisgarh; Presently R/o R-2, Vinoba Nagar, Near Gayatri Mandir, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. Shri Vishvaranjan, Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Shri Pawan Dev, Inspector General of Police (Administration) Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIU UNDER ARTICLE "215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT The petitioner named above respectfully begs to submit as follows: Ijaiil.Ji.^.-^,,-:;. ..:.„. .,.....„_.„ > .._...„-._„„„„„--.. ^n^r'^T [<^ich 3TI^i 5^^ic^ ^rftcf ^.;. \.- -3~sr ^wid^. ^T<I^I<S< ^^i^y ^^ ^T^ _....<l-t"..'....C^.^(^^: ^^/n ^ HW^l $hHlcb 'fN^T' 'sn^T'^TT^R; ^rf^y SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohah Shrivastava, *J 21-02-2011 Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhed^ Learned counsei for the pet|tioner submits that this Court vide order dated 26/4/2010 passed jn W.P.N^.2340/06 disposed off the petition on a statement made by the counsel for the State that if representation js made by the petitioner, the same shail be cohsidered and decided, in accordance with iaw and on its own merits, within ^ period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation. Thereafte was passed, the petitioner filed cor(tempt case (c)No.142/10. The contempt petition was dismissed as withdraw^ with iiberiy to file another representation on the strength of order dated 23/4/10 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court in contempt, if iaw and on its own merits. Thi^ entitlement of ciaim for promotion n< say ihat even during the pendency cbJ^id<4)r1 'HW^ff ^ 'ft^ ipsi^K ^'37P<W3T^?T , counsel for the petitioner. , a representation was made. As no order texigency arises in future. It js submitted that thereafter the representatipn w^s made to the respondent but vide order dated 7/1/11, his representation ha^ been rejected. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that even thou^h departmental enquiry concerning his posting in Korba district was ciosecf vide order dated 20/1/06, in the garb of another departmentai enquiry, petitioner's ciaim for promotion has been deferred tiii decision of another enc^iry which is contemptuous and an act of over reaching the order ofthis Couri). Vide order dated 26/4/10 irt W.P.No.2340/06, the writ petition was disposed off on a statement njiade by the State counsei that the representation, if any, shali be con|sidered and decided in accordance with Court did not decide the petitioner's r was there any specific direction to grant him promotion in the event of concli[ision of one enquiry. The order does not if enquiry no.6/07, the petitioner would be 1 Tft^ tf^ ^•oci ^iiqia^i ?PT, ^Ti1yji<^, ^<ni<ill< 3^?r xra^ ..<^f.-....<^.^..k2v^' ^1}) HWW[ ^^^--———'——^^ 200 9^ •l^^sr' ^TT^T^T 'f^ri^^n^T ^FRN'^rftd Y/t Deepii t- 3TT^?T <^ITW^it^ -^' entitled for promotion. The respond( the petitioner. If the petitioner h; correctness and vatidity of the said 01 take recourse to such remedy, as ma However, 1 am not inclined order, in any manner, is an act of respondents. Accordingly, the petitior <^l^i<rt<flvl +ii^<nT'? Fs^ ^^K ^3Tf^FT3?n^T mts have decidedthe representation of Is any grievance with regard to the der, it would be open for the petitioner to ^ be avaiiabie to him under the law. b accept this submission that the said wiliful disobedience on the part of the is dismissed. Mam.d"MotanShrivastava Judge 1 4~. ^tfe-t