IN THE HON'BLE MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM AT BILASPUR fC.G.) CONTEMPT CASE fC) N0.' / 5(0 OF 2010 PETITIONER ....••••••::^y- '" v.?'^:;.»^^.A^*'' ...^ss^-"' -^ ^".^^ .^"*' .^^ Jaipuran Son of LateGulab Ram, aged about 32 years, Caste Rajwar, Resident of Village Dumaria, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS 1. Pandeshwar Sai son of Not known, aged about 45 years, Superintending Engjneer, Public Works Division (P.W.D.), Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.). 2. R. K. Kumar son of Not known, aged about 42 years, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.). 3. C. P. Vishwakarma Son of Not known, aged about 40 years, Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10 & 12 OFTHE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT The petitioner humbly submits as under:- ^ ;-HC'-22 3:TT^T^T f<-iich sniT?T ?h^ich ^[^^1 ^^ ^i^id<Li, ~^TTlyJi^. ^<yii^y ^..Ce.^£..^£iJ^J. ^^^.....................................^ ^ •^^T""""" MW^{{ 9h*4(cb ^TT^T'^n^n: ^Tftn SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra IVIohan Shrivastava, J. 19.01.2011 Shri Atanu Ghosh, courlsel Shri Amrito Das, couns^l Learned counsel for th^ passed by this Court ha^ representation of the petition^r 22.9.2010. Learned counsel for averment niade in the representation of the petitioi|ier compliance of the order passe|d has occurred, which is inadve^te subinits unconditional caused. Considering the submi^ the parties and after though there was some delaj does not appear to be a case Rule is therefore The petition is accordin^l inadvetrtent apolo|gy perusip-g dischaijged Praveen cbl^(d^lr1 'RTR^ff ^ f^slf <F3l^l< ^37f^R37T^?T for the petitioner. for respondents No. 2 & 3. petitioner submits that the order been complied with and the has been decided vide order dated r^pondents No. 2 85 3, referring to -eply, has submitted that the has been decided in respectful by this Court, though, some delay and the respondents authority for the delay which has been |sions made by learned counsel for the reply filed by respondents, in deciding the representation, it dfwillful disobedience. ;ly finally disposed off. sd/L Shr^ iMoban Manindra ^^ |:T[fe ^^^