^ m 'msm^ /^/ ^ ^^^^ /^y/ Gontcmpt Cssft ^ N0^3 j@l^) gjnjje fiencB y'y-^SX ' BETWEEK '"' ^ \ ../-^" BEIWBEM Im^tion ©Qlo3^r>^hsiiMl^^r»Baip.ir^^ 2* Bss^aaQd M2^1^ ^a B^-i Bal Xii^ma M^to^ aged aNmt itB yfi^s^ ^/Q QM.arter Mo* H-33^ Imgsfcicm CSGtarsF^ gfaa.iiti Kagar^ RS^IIT ^CI^ 3. Bi^tiiu J^B Mstod B/a Shxa I-dteii JRam Msh^ ^^sd abcxuA 56 ye^^ B^a ^ia^toE" i^siJi-lQ^^ Img^sm ColQny»Sfaanti N^^r^ Ra^y.r 4CQ^ , 4.B.P* Upad^ay W^ A@te §^EEI Oaae^ B^^a^ Upadb^ay^ ageit aNtiat §6years, SI/Q Qiim'te HQ* H- 67^ fe^^o^ Cotox^S^^iN M^^r^ Ra^ir iGQ^ S* R^» MitdHar B/o Bhri ¥eiite^tesh Nxad^r^ age^ aNxat. 50 jesss^ K/Q ^ast^ ^M-^lt JfaTtotoa Coiony»Shanti Nagar^i^ipur (€Q^ e* PJ2» Yeshcai ^/Q late ^m YKaaa Yes^m» ai®ed aboui ii2 year^ R/Q ^^sts^ lfQtM-S.17^ Issjg^assi Colcmy^ Shan^ Na^r^ Ra^ur |CC^» 7* j^dsash J^e^ ^/&4mte Bas J^ge^ a^^ aNx^t S7 yes^^ R/Q ^art^ .N©E^H-MQI^^^em €^fi^ Shanti N^^r^ Ra^ar4G% & Ee^ Mattoair B/aBte T*a J^stNa^ ^e^ atoafe years^ ^/o Qai^t^ .No^teits-^ Hoiis&ig^ ©cstotiy^ Tatibaadli»^puri€^ 9. Kishcr dosM S/o l^te .Moiban lal <Jos^ a^d aNnit 53 ye^s^R/oi Qv^te^JiQ.ei-^* Oh^^ ©s^ttes^ Sector-a^ D&vendra N^^r^ Ra^ur,|e€i^ lCt ^BS^ St^rea-ste .Raei %^fp a^d abaut 46 5%^^ M/Q Buildin^€Sdt(^^t€»?^yae§» -^/l^ Fm ll.As.hc^ Mishm S/o Shii tJai .KisNm Mi^y^^ §^&d about SS ye^s^ €^aSim ^^ ESstoa Aliste"^ S^B? -.^ Cho%rsl£> Raats^^^ar^ BisSQB^ssB^ Ms&issfc Qhamtari(€G^ l^. aunder l^ Sah^ B^©^iri Bts^ Baaa S^i^ about 60 years^ R/Q ¥^^& ^arda&a^ At/P..Q. Vilta@& Narhada^ District Ra^iiar iCQ)* 13. Bal M»lausd Ga}pal B/& Chatur Sam Q^pal^ a^d aNxyt 5B year&^ X^fi( ^t^tar MQ^ B/6^ te^i&ffi Qo&oaxy^ Bss.gy^ P.Q* Oa33^el» ISistnct £lbamtoi iCG). 14*Moii Lal GhmK^-akar B/o Shn ^stn^imi Lal Chandrato^ aged aNait 58 years^ B^flt Qsa^t^rJSsk A/24^ Woadk Charge tei^ticaa CoIoB^ Qaiagr^ P.Q* Gangre^ E3ttstetGfc Dli^at^i^Ca). aboiit 15* Madhy J^amdeo B/Q S^ai Alha Xamdeo» 59 ye^'s^ Br^Eihaap^'a Ward ]^eE>28> Qistrict Dhamtari ^CG). 16. Dfaam Ksss Xca^Et a/o^ Mxasr ^i^i Xfiffff^ a^d abcmt 58 years^ B/o ^uartar Mo. A^51, Budri Coloxiy^ P.0. Rudrt, IMstrfet Dhaintari ^Q^. 2. }2E3^E^^ESS Shxa BJ^ i£utars» Oba^ ^igteeer* MateajS.sdi Proiec^ Water JReg.fia^'eeSi Bspsrteiaatt pr&sfi^tily Shankw Nagar Chowk^ Raipur ^CQ^ Sliri MA Sliiik^^ CIiiedT JB^agbEie^^ Mahsmadi Qodawaii Basm^ Wat^- JlesQiu-cfis fiepar^n<mt» Shankar Na^r Chortt Ra^ur|€^ KBSPONDEirm CQNTEMPT PETmON UNMR A8TIGLB 215 QF THE COHSTITU1ION OF Bmi^ MEAB %I1H BECmO^ 12 € CONTEMPT OF <20UK'm ACI'.1971 ^ S^T^T^T r^jch 3n|sr ^*-n<=h <ii^a "u ^ -3^ •^qTqi^r'T, ^NTre, f^cil-My 3Tlit3?T -^^ ...&.^..:....^A..^,^/u 'WR^tT^rRlch f^re^r* 31T^?T ^CTW^f^T SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohari wr|t 09-02-2011 Shri Sameer Behar, counsel f< Heard on admission. This petition has been fiied 19/04/10 passed by this Court in W.ff Learned counsel for the petif 19/4/1 Opassed in the aforesaid respondents may consider the dai^ circuiars dated 2/3/05 and 2/4/05. petitioners may submit fresh represe( and copy of the petition before respc| that on such representation being date of receipt of the order, the resp^ the matter within a period ofthree it is contended by learned c< detailed representation atong with respondent herein, the respondent matter but has oniy recorded his opi forwarded the matter to the Ens consideration. Further submission that in the spirit of the order of this consider the representation andclai circulars dated 2/3/05 and 2/4/05 but by the respondent, does not duly circuiars and therefore, the opinion passed bythisCourt. chl^fd^l^ 'HTR^ff'^ fec2t i^l^K ^airf^sn^i Shrivastava, J. the petitioners. ai|eging willful disobedience of order dated .(s) No.2341/05. :ioners submitted that vide order dated petition, this Court observed that the of the petitioners in the -light of two This Court further observed ihat the itation along with aforesaid two circulars Indent No.3 therein. This Court ordered ma|de within a period of one month from the ^ndent No.3 therein shall take decision in mohths thereafter. ^unsei for the petitioners that though a c|3py of the orderwas submitted to the ^fact has not taken any decision in the ^ion and recording some other reasons, jineer-in-Chief, Water Resources for c|f learned counsel for the petitioners is C|ourt, the respondent was duty bound to i|n of the petitioners in the light of two |the memo dated 5/6/10 (Annexure C/3) c<|>nsider that dispute in the light of two itself is in utter disregard to the order [•^ -^fe-q CDI; -HC-22 sniST'cFT f<Tli<=h 3T1^T 5h*ii<^ ^f^a ^..: / Deepii •^ET ^ll^ld^l, ^•d1^l<o, ^<vtl^ll< HW^l 9b^ich 3TT^T 'CUra? ....<^...&A-^)^J 'f^^ST' ^T^T ^^IW ^rf^T --?' This Court, on submissions| claim based oncertain circuiars, petitioners' ciaim in the light of c|i submit representation aiong with one month.whereupon, respondeijit period of three months thereafter. issue. Moreover, this Court did| respondente on the basis of the ^fc ordered by this Court was to memo dated 5/6/10 shows that the petitioners and while consideration the two circulars a ciear opinion that the petitioners| the opinion of this Court, the ievei. it appears that exercislng] forwarded the matter for further However, in so far as opinion, the respondents having petitioners, it cannot be said that ttfe directions of this Court. If the taken by the respondents, it will appropriate remedy, as may be inciinedto issue notice to respond^r decide tHe datled cbNdrfl'l ^i*i<nT'^'feT:st <P»I^K irsrf^R^n^T |made by the petitioners with regard to their o()ser/ed that the respondents may consider ircuiar dated 2/3/05 and 2/4/05 and may the copy of the petition within a period of shali take decision in the matter within a IThis Court did not decide the merits of the not issue any specific direction to ihe ^forementioned two circuiars. Ail that was the case of the petitioners. A perusal of respondent has considered the ciaim of consi4Jering the aspect, has aiso taken into 2/3/05 and 2/4/05. He nas aiso formed representation is liabie to be rejected. tn resbondent has taken a decision at his own his own discretion, the respondent has coijisideration io the higher authorities. corrjpiiance of the order is concerned, in my fol'med an opinion with regard to the claim of respondents have willfully disobeyed the petiti(|)ners have anygrievance with the decision al^ays be open for them to take recourse to elvaiiabie to them under the law. 1 am not ^nts. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge [^^fe^ .) €^