^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C^S^SL^ .__ .. 7 I /2011 Ca^^C^) CONTEMPT APPLICANTS ^.^ ^v^^ ^/^y ^y^ CONTEMNOR RESPONDENT 1. Ramesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri B.C. Sahu, Aged about 45 years, R/o Govt. J. Yoganandan Chhattisgarh P.G. College Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) Akhilesh Tiwari,S/0 Late Shri Hari Govind Tiwari , Aged about 47 years, R/6 41- Ravi Nagar , Raipur-(C.G.) VERSUS Shri C.K. Khetan, Secretary/Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W. SECTIONL 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1979 HC—78 3TT^?T ^T f^^icb WT 31T^T 5h^J<=h ^IWCtT '3^T -qN|(r)-4,%9Ti1<-|^(o, [®|<n|^|^< ^te...^M.:..^...^..7./A'200 ^v< 3TI^?T XI^F (ysiIyi<^T) ^«li^R^lf^a 3^T^T SB : Hon>ble Shri Manindral cbl^lfd^l'l tTFT^f ^f 'fe^ ^R$R ^3tRp=r3n^T Moban Shrivastava, J. 18.10.2011 Shri Surdl Otwani, coujasel for fhe petitioners. Shri. B.L. Sahu, couns^l for the respondent Heard. Leamed counsel for f4e petitioners, ia view of fhe reply and subsequent dcvelopments jthat the matter has been decided, submitted that though fhejorder passed by the Court has been compUed with, there has bee submits that on 12.7.2010, () the petitioner 2 months tim^ to the respondent to decide [i delay of about 7 months m complying wifh the order of the Courjfc. Learned counsel for fhe petitioners ^rder was passed by this Court granting to prefer representation and direction |th.e matter withta a reasonable period, witti aa outer limit of 4 m^nftis firom the date of receipt of the representation. It is sub^iitted that a representation dated 16.8.2010 was submitted bj^ fhe petitioner before the respondent- conteninor on 17.8.2010. Ifowever, ttie matter was not decided withia the stipulated period,| but fhe order came to be passed only on 22.7.2011, by which, fhje representation of fhe petitioner has been decided. He submits contempt petition that fhe I that it was only after filing of the representation of the petitioner was decided. Learned counsel fuitther submits that though some excuse hftS b66tl Ste.ted IBTtlie re'ply>1^I^1samb ls quite vagU^~atld nOt very "-f-~ / XI-HC—78 ^-5 ^sr '^qr^r, y>'ti1^Ji^, fs<dt<L)ti< ^p^ir ^rt-nGR "^ 200 w^r TT?RF (li°iil<s<^) 37T^?T ^TT f<4i<sb ^m 3H^T s^^jch '^FTW^ft^ 3TT^I •z. specific. Therefore, the delay deliberate. On the other hand, le^rned submitted that fhe order pass^d wifh^ though belatedty, for wli^ch, unconditional apology with fhej fhe same in furfher. In fhe retum, it has deliberate or intentional and administrative procedure, for unconditional apotogy with fhe fhe same in future. fhis Court, the authorities are| time liaiit is fixed, the decisioiif '^P^Ffr[ 'RFMf ^' 'fe^t <F^^!< ^ 3TRP:I3?H^[ appears to be iatentioiial and counsel for the respondent by fhe Court has been complied the respondent has prayed for undertakiag fhat he will not repeat Ueen stated that fhe delay is not the same has occurred due to |rorhich, the respondent tenders his [undertakiag that he witl not repeat It has to be bome in min.4 that whatever orders are passed by under an obUgation to decide the same ia accordance wifh the or^ler passed by the Court and where a are required to be taken withia the time limit speci&ed. It is expect^d fhat if fhe aufhority is not able to decide the matter within titie t4ne limit prescnbed by the Court for any bonafide reason, the aufhonty should approach the Court immediately after expiry of fhe period prescribed and inform fhe reason as to why the decisioii has not been taken and order not complied with wifhin the tune stipulated and it is always open for r" .€^^ "t, i&e^... I: MS':^:. & ^ ^.,_...^. '^^:T^C-78 ^TI^T^iT f^'lich WT ^IT^T 5h^Jch L Praveea ~s^ ^i^Kri^ '^-a1^^i<o, f^dj^y IdCTl (h*l(ct»""""" """""""""""""""""^ 200 ^n^ff ^^K (^^^f) ^ ^<TTW;Rf?H^T^T ^- such an aufhority to move However, whenever fhere is be stated to show fhat fhe de due to circumstances beyond Consideriag that an wifh fhe undertakmg fhat it taking into consideration th taken, I am not inclined to i it is expected that fhie respo complying with fhe order c»»t<<f<yi41iTm:T^if "^ i^Sf Tf^$R '^'^tfOTa^T an appUcation for extension of tiine. 1 delay, proper reasons are requtred to lay was not intentional, but occasioned the control. uijiconditional apology has been tendered jwiU not be repeated ia future and also fct the decision in fhe matter has been ^roceed further ia fhe matter. However, |ident shall be cautious and dfligent iii Court, in future. ofthe The rule is fherefore di^charged and the petition is accordiagly finally disposed of. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge