-|~ <'' S 1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contem.pt C^se (Civil) No.3% OF 2011 PETITIONER ^^••^'s^ SS'^I^?3- P? prss OSii-'-* RESPONDENT Contemnor Smt. Reema Sharma, aged about 46 years, W/o Satish Sharma, occupation-Lecturer, Govemment College of Education, Bilaspur, R/o 114, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 607)11 KUTO^ Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONST!TUTION_OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF THE COURT ACT. ^ j sn^r ^ii ft'fi'* 'sw sn^w iktii* W-TClT^iHI^ ^sT.';?ipn^r, '®Tft:aTi^,fsi<viiyli< ^.....^±:....^..^...©..[^^/'' 8bH|eh sn^iTraqr ('yig3^) TOnwafwai^r SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra lan Shrivastava, J. nas 09-11-2011 Shri Rahui Birtharey, counj This contempt petition hfts disobedience of order dated 28/6< Learnea counsel for tne fiied by the petitioner aggrievep respondent in not extending the b|ei under the iaw. The said writ petltioner to approach the as the writ petition was not approachea me authority tnougr) review oetition was filed. whlch maae out. Learnea counsei ror wni petrtion, mis uourt oDservea on me representation and evenl responaent ougm to nave aeciaed no aecision nas Deen taKen m inel A perusai of order pas^< No.3022/10 shows that though petition observing that the petitiof| ciaiming simiiar benefits, ieavir|g doncerned respondent authoritv, declsion in accordance with iaw. dismissed on 19/09/2011. Con^ dismi?sed only on 19/09/2011 <*i^f<'i41-f 'wrcS'? fs^S Tfw?iT ^•3TRR3lA?I conceriliea entelrtained wlas the sei ror tne petinoner. been filed by the petitioner aiieging willfui ii|2010 passed in Vv.P.(S) No.3022/10. fjetitioner submiis that earlier a writ petition was on account of inaction on the part of the tlenefits to the petitioner which are avaiiabie to her itetition was disposed of ieaving it ODen to the rifted respondent authoritv. He further submits that e|rtained by observing that the petitioner had not infact the petitioner had eariier approached, a aismissea noiaing tnat no grouna of review is petitioner submits that whiie disposing off the Ithat the respondent authority shail take decision IT tnere is no specfflc tlme iimit prescnbed, the the ciaim wiihin a reasonable period but tiil date Imatter. jed by this Court on 28/06/2010 in 'w.P.(S) this Court was not inciined to entertain the writ |er had not approachsd the respondent authority it open to the petitioner to approach the it was observed that the authoritv shaii take The petitioner filed a review petition which was ^idering the fact ihat the review Detition was ^nd further that the Detitioner was reauired to XI-HC—78 Sf^S ^il W\* 'sv sv^s *w* ./> L/eej3ii (S) ffmvn Q»*II<* 7=1 '<)i-4i<yi'4, ^Tfly'Ko, fsi<>iiylj,< ^.Co^.c-lcJ.^^eyj] ff^ I'OO ^SIIWtriOTSI^I sn^i 'IRI^ ('^f^'i^i) -•?- approach the concerned authority to issue notice in this contemDt oe |for redressai of her grievance, i am not inclined tition. The petitioner is required to approach the concerned respondent as this Coutt has observed in its order dated 28/6/2010 that the authorit/ shaii take decision oti the representation. The concerned authority / competent authoritv of the petition^r is obiiged under the iaw to take decision in th® matter. Even if, no specific tirhe obiiged to decide the matter within limit has been fixed, the authority concerned is ia reasonacie time. With the observations as ab|ove, the petition is finally disposed off. tt>l<lh?)41c1 TFR?ff ^f "fe^^^R ^aiRnan^T ScS/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava