INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHMATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 8nflte8encir CONTEMPT PETITIONER: c.esg cc^ N0. lo4 OF 2011 .'^•€& 'S^e-^' '0*ad-"^.c -...-"^^ ^ ^"-"q RESPONDENTS: Ashok Kumar Modi, S/o Shudarshan Lal Modi, aged about 58 years, presently posted and working as Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Pathrapali (West), Block Development & Dist. Raigarh (CG). Versus 1. Shri M.K. Raut, Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971. W/' XI-HC-22 ^ ^TT^T^T f<rli(=h 3TI^T st)^ich ~^^^ T / • ^ ^-^r •?qPTT?R, "^ftOT^. fa^Kiy _,.^^.^^^C^J °^/11 ^nww^nrra? ^ wi 2( ***^re^r' ® 3?T1^T ^ciTW^rf^T [SB : Hon'ble Shri Mantndra M 29.3.2011 Shii Rajendra Tripafhi, co Heard on admission. Leamed counsel for the 10.12.2008 passed in W.P. (! 23.1.2009 passed in M.C.C. N the respondent wiUfully, as th' has not been decided within a receipt of the representation. p^titioner submits that order dated ^] No. 1895/08 and order dated ]o.29/09 have been disobeyed by ^ representation of the petitioner t^eriod of 8 weeks Irom the date of Leamed counsel for the ^ dated 10.12.2008, the petitior fresh representation withm a p( the order and it was further dir being made, the respondent shs of 8 weeks from the date of accordance witli law. However, his representation withm a per wherein, fhe Court, vide orde petitioner further time of 10 Leamed counsel for the petitj given in the earlier order cbl^fd^'l 'WI^ff "^ f^1c^ iPsK^K ^-yrf^TH 3TT^T bhan Shrivastava, J.1 unsel for the petitioner. 4-- )etit.ioner submits that vide order ier was granted liberty to make sriod of one week from the date of ected that on such representation 11 decide the same within a period receipt of fhe representation, in as the petitioner could not prefer lod of one week, M.C.C was filed, ;r dated 23.1.2009, aUowed the days to make representation. oner submits that the direction dated 10.12.2008 in W.P. ^ ^f^ - '^:^ T ^l^: %.. XI-HC-22 3TT^T'3RT f^ri^^n^T 5ti^ich ^Tfi^T Praveen ^5? •^FIT^R, "^ft^TT^. ^<rll<l1< 3nt?T XRRF HW<^{ ^^^'"""""""""""""""—^^200 f^^T" 3^T'^TT^R'^Tf^T -z- No. 1895/08, for decision of reFJresentati< after passing of the order datejd and even if the petitioner couldj stipulated time, fhe second p^rt representation in 8 weeks still In the order dated 23.1.2(] <^i^f<n41ri H\H^\\ ^ f^st <fa^i< ^r'srf^R'yn^r F(resentation, remained intact even 23.1.2009 in M.C.C. No.29/09 not file representation within fhe of the dtrection to decide the siiuvives, 09, fhe petitioner was grarited 10 days' t'Lirther time to make repijesentation. The respondents were directed to decide the represent^tion within a period of 8 weeks, if the petitioner moves a represenpa.tion wifhin a period of one week from the date of order dated ^0.12.2008. The petitioner haviiig failed to submit. such represenjtation, there was no occasion fbr the respondent to decide repil-esentation within a period of 8 weeks. In subsequent order djated 23.1.2009, it has not been stated that the respondent sh^ll now decide the representation within any stipulated period ^fter expi^ of further time of 10 days granted to the petitionei^ said to have been made out. The petition deserves to dismissed at the admission stage Therefore, no contempt can be be dismissed and is accordingly Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 1^^^