^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) cc^- CONTEMPTCASE.NO. ~l^ OF 2011 Sll PETITIONER J RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR '-fr Ghanshyam Singh Son of Late Shri Paramhans Singh, aged about 32 years, Resident of Bauripara Shikari Road, .Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS Sarjiyas Minj, Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ -HC—78 ''i'nw^i l^iN; ?|8II'3?I^i3i'.7isr 7er -^ww^, ^^WS, feroy .C.O^.-,Q;tA.^-..(]^.'v~-':::^/i^ ^PI sn^r T?R? (Tjoit^^q) renwgfersn^i SB : Hon'ble Shri IVIanindra Mohan Bhrivastava, J, 11.10-2011 ^Nwfrr iwRff -cj -fet^ tfSi^R ^'aifWTsn^i Shri V. K-Pandey, counsel fo Shri Kishore Bhaduri, counsel Heard. Reply has been filed by the r^ stated on affidavit by the responc( 20-07-2010 was submitted at the R^ representation could not be reach) Secretary, and in fact, the responde^ the impression that no representaticji is also stated that on 04-01-2011, was sent through the counsel, th^ representation, and thereafter, conc the petitioner was called from the ferned records relating to the case of |Ambikapur, which consumed some important state functions pertainingj and other works of urgency in the ^ 31-03-2011, the respondent retired) |the petitioner. For the respondent. ispondent.In the reply, it has been ent that the representation dated ceipt Section, from where, the said id to the concerned office of the it/contemnor all through was under i has been made till 04-01-2011. It epresentation was received, which said representation was taken as time. After the records were callejd, the respondent was involved in that subsequently, the success^r in the office had decided the representation of the petitioner vijie order dated 27-08-2011 and the order of the Court has been com submitted an unconditional apolog of the Court order. to framing of new recruitment rules /ake of closure of financial year. On In the reply, it has also been stated lied with..The respondent had also for the delay caused in compliance -(- ^ ^ !-- + i-HC—78 a'B^r'qiT^^,' gasiaii^-a^w ^ ^sr -^nM<i, y-til-y'iri, l^iRq.!: 'W!;200 SII^T'^ra' (' TOireT'dfNsii^r -^- •TCqfeTfrl1WWS •?fs^ ^N^Ft '^'SflgRSi'^T Taking into consideration the ^tatement, which has been made on affidavit by the respondent that h^ came to know for the first time regarding the order of the Court onl^j on 04-01-2011 and also taking into consideration the nature of exercise l-equired to be undertaken under the Court's order and further stegs we|e taken towards compliance of the order of the Court, and before ^ome order could be passed, the respondent retired on 31 -03-201 1, l |am not inclined to proceed further in the matter, particulariy when, fhe (epresentation of the petitioner has been decided by the successor irj the office on 27-08-2011, though belatedly. However, before parting vj'ith the case, this Court cannot resist observing that an order passed by fiis Court on 01-07-2010, which was sent along with the representaticjn dated 20-07-2010 came to the knowledge ofthe respondentas lat^ as on 04-01-2011. Learned counsel for the respondent could not disput^ that this is an act of callousness on the part of one, who is responsible' induding the orders of the Court b^ for placing relevant communications •fore the concerned authority and he assures that an enquiry in this reg^rd shall be made by the State in its concerned department to avoid ^uch a situation where the orders passed by the Court are kept v^thout brought to the notice of the concerned authority for the monthsjtogether. In the result, rule is discharg^d. The petition is finally disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitione( to challenge the legality and validity of order dated 27-08-2011 . —'— _» r Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^