IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO.?)IS / 2011 mM PETITIONER Hemant Kumar Rathore, S/o. Shri Ganesh Prasad Rathore, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Gram Harratola (Satopur), Post-Lalpur, Tahsil - Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Thakur Ram Singh, Collector, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. B.K. Rajput, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF TME CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^y "A\ c^/y^ h./yA~)' ./^Z6!^ ^,,^B^§PONDENTS '^<f The petitioner named above respectfully begs to submit as under:- most hurably and ^. \^ HWWt SftHlch ~3^ ^ww^ ^Tti^4i<o, f®r<vti<H^< ..Co^.A.?e..fcl^3l^^1 •^200 3^?F^r"^W ^^iW^FgPlNr SIT^T TPPF (^^<^) ^fl^R ^l?^ 37T^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohart Shrivastava, J. 14-09-2011 Shri N. K. Chatterji, counsel fc(r the petitioner/s. Heard. Learned counsel for the ^F4S^<-8f 'W^ft7^ffe^ tfa^R i6r3t^3l^?F •etitioner/s submits that earlier the petitioner/s had filed writ petition bjefore this Court aggrieved by notice dated 06-04-2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Assistant Commissioner. In the aforesaid writ petition, staterpent was made by the learned State counsel that the notice dated 06-04-1 authority and the fgict that the petitio| that no final decision in the matter h1 only after the receipt of reply. Consic] petition was finally disposed off ot|serving that the show cause notice shows tentative opinion and not ^ respondents shall duly consider the appropriate enquiry before coming tc^ of the petitioner/s. It is submitted th^ the petitioner/s on 13-07-2011, till d| also submitted that in the spirit of th| on the part of the respondents to tal^ but decision has not been taken, whi^ The order passed by this Co< petition was disposed off observing this Court against the notice dat| submission made by learned State 2011 is only a tentative opinion of the ner/s have been given a notice shows as been taken and the same would be lering the aforesaid statement, the writ final decision and further that the reply filed by the petitioner/s and hold |any conclusion adverse to the interest it though reply has been submitted by ate, no decision has been taken. It is 3 order of the Court, it was incumbent e decision in the matter expeditiously, ^h amounts to willful disobedience. irt on 04-07-2011 shows that the writ |hat the petitioner/s have approached sd 06-04-2011 and in view of the counsel. It is not the case of the 'x. ^^ "% T \...:^y ^ XI-HC—78 'TaT ^iqi^^^ ^ftw^ J®t<rtt^^< Hl*1<1( WHKft •^ 200 3TT^T '(T5R? ('^33^T) 3TF^T ^Ff R^{<* "cf^T 3:H^T 5^^J<=b Tumane ^RTTW ^rf?^ 37T^T <=nNfc'i41i "HF^ff ^? fe^t <I^I^K ^3fR^Wt^T petitioner/s that without conoidcrin^ tho roply, CQrtain orders have now been passed. The matter has not(been decided by the respondents till date. Moreover, the notice dated 0^-04-2011 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, and it is found that 1?ie petitioner/s have submitted reply to the respondent-Collector with a cop^j to the Assistant Commissioner. In that view of the matter, I ^am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents. j Accordingly,the petition is dis|missed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge