^ -^ ?T??13 ^) BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR f CHHATTISGARH ) CONTEMPT CAS^CNO.^Ot^'/ 2009 PETITIONER: ^ 1! ^'^^' ^J.P. Singh, S/o Shame Singh, aged about 63 years, R/o Quarter 'No. 6-A, Street No. 32, Sector-5, Bhilai, Nagar, Durg (C.G.) ^"". _. •^^'" RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR, VERSUS S.K. Kashyap Recovery Officer, Co-operative Societies, Durg. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971. ^' LP 'S'ST ^TFTRT^, ^^TFI^, t^RTRTy ^v^ -C^^6-)^3^/^ "^200 s?i?r^N?^ ^T^T <q?j^ (^f^^F) Ll.i-r-T-i: ^^^ R^i<^ wr 3iT^i ^RW ?^TW^f^^1^T S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan 11-08-2011 Shri T. K. Tiwari, counsel for the Shri Akhilesh Kumar, counsel for Heard. fcetitioner. jrespondent. By this petition, willful disobejdience of order dated 18-08-2009 (Annexure C-l) passed by this Court in been alleged. Learned counsel for the petitio|ier made by the counsel for respondent ths 2008 shall be decided within a period o| a copy of this order. The said order wasj 2009. However, the respondent failed t({3 time stipulated, and thereby, flouted thej Learned counsel for the respond| the reply, submitted that the respondef the order of the Court. As soon as th^ 2009, the respondent issued notice to| case on 07-10-2009 clearly stating that| view of the order passed by this Coi|rt respondent was holding the additional to his substantive post of Senior Co-o^ matter, the respondent was relieved °i»?zl(^T<Eft^'RPR^ff ^ fe^ if^R^R ^"^tRr^^ii^ hrivastava, J. Writ Petition (C)No.3148 of 2009 has submits that the statement was t the pending application dated 08-04- six weeks from the date of receipt of received by the respondent on 24-08- take decision in the matter within the order of the Court. ^nt referring to the averments made in \\t has no intention to disobey or flout 3 information was received on 22-09- the contesting parties to submit their the matter is required to be decided in irt. Learned counsel submits that the ;harge of Recovery Officer in addition ^erative Inspector. Before deciding the the additional charge of Recovery frlom ^, <r§Ht^r^~FS/l40—2/2011—1,5©,000. ^^'•^^^. ^r' ...:,-?^. \ I '^y-% 1 % ""'"^ ?..?' ^^^^' -ysf "^n^TRTq,. ^iTFT^, l^fRT^ •^200 ^T^F °?^F(^i^^) ^S?^T'^Tl^?8W ^n<i?n^r^ro^ y llNWNai' Tumane ^i?W^ft^3?T^[ Officer vide order dated 12-11-2009 submits that though the respondent cou| the office, from the steps, which wece | there was any intention to flout the ordeil Taking into consideration the that the respondent proceeded to decj< further that the reply was filed on 07-10^ was relieved from the additional chargej am not inclined to proceed further in the| Learned counsel for the present incumbent as a respondentin the order of the Court has been incumbent, 1 am not inclined to impleadj in the contempt petition. Accordingly, the petition is finall^ to the notice of the present incumben| Court on 18-08-2009. The present incu^ take decision on application dated 08-Cj^ by the respondent within a period of si^ copy of this order, which has now liberty to take recourse to remedy as against the erring official. 04- be^n ^nf<n^1i 'RPR^f ^ 'fe^'.^fa^K ^T 3?feH ^T^I (A^nexure R-6). Learned counsel lastly |d not dedde the matter, before he left jtaken by him, it cannot be said that of the Court. subtnissions, which have been made and jde the matter by issuing notice and 42009 and the fact that the respondent |of Recovery Officer on 12-11-2009, l Imatter. petiticjner has prayed for impleading the present contempt petition. Unless, brjought to the notice of the present jthe present incumbent as respondent disposed off. The petition may bring regarding the order passed by this incu|nbent shall be under an obligation to -Q4-2008. In case, no decision is taken ^ weeks from the date of receipt of a passed, the petitioner would be at be available to him under the law njiay Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge imiy^^^hr^n^^, cns^rrRT—FS/i40—2/2011—I,SQ,OGO.