IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU CHHATTISGARH CONTEMPT PETITION N0. (0 Z; OF 2006 @vzmimé ou+ 0% IN THE MATTER OF: - m WRIT PETITION NO.942 OF 2006 BE] W EEN Sundar Lal Markam PETITIONER AND State of Chhattisgarh and others k (swam LAL MARKAM, RESPONDENTS SON OF AMAR LAL MARKAM, ASSISTANT AGED ABOUT ENGINEER 45 YEARS, (Suspended), w ‘ ‘ OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR, R/o HIG—120, VIJETA COMPLEX, NEW RAJENDRA NAGAR, RATPUR, DISTRICT: RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH. PETITIONER VERSUS /P. JOY UMMEN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY; PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH, MANTRALAYA, D.K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH. M G.S. SOLANKI, ENGINEER-IN—CHIEF, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH, RAIPUR, CHHATTTSGARH. RESPONDENTS/ CONTEMNORS ‘ ( N CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE EM CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1973 READ WITH ARTICLE a 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / i zo m o mam WW mm i f i 5 E y a Com Pet Na 108/06 109/06 & 110/66 and AACC Né 301/06 302/06 & 303/06 10—7—2006 - 108/2006, 109/2006 §& 110/aooa and‘ M.c.c. Nos i 302/2006 & 303/2000? 301/2006, “”mug W. If is poinfed ou‘r frrhaf whii disposing of wri‘r peTi‘fi 1 s filed by The pe‘rifioners/respéngien‘rs, is Court direcfi’gfi The; Sim‘e of Chha‘r‘risgarh and fhe aiifhor'ifie concerned f0 consider imd decide ‘I'he represen‘ra‘rion of $12 pe‘h oner' wx‘rhm a period of Six weeks from fhe do‘re of prodycflon of fhe represen‘mhon If§is further- poim‘ed ou‘r Thai m compiiance of The order passed by fhi5§Courf fhe i K i i peTITioners submmed ‘g'heir rep senfafions before fhe§concerned aufhorifies, bu+ ’rhe samge have no been decided fill dafe § if is pointed 0L§T Tho? ‘ Sfm‘e has also filed? MCC for exfension of ‘hme In deciding tierem on The ground fhm‘ due 1' bond fxde reasons ‘l'he some could \ $0 (43%) {1139 33$ (MifiiL-E‘V'iif E i e represenfcmon of fhe§pefifloner $ i A t i ifFi ' e Shri §oniay k’: Agrawmi, counsei for ‘fhe frhoner's/ responden‘rs. i i Shri Pmshan‘i’ ilshm Addl. Advoca‘re Genemf for The SfaTe/appiicant i i i Heard. This common i i i sholi Z i i of Contempf Pefrmon Nos m,mvi%a / /7, noT be decided wh‘hin The sfipulai is no main fide % x‘ o have been decided. Héwever, in The represen‘m‘hon oughf 3 § Lef fhe represenia‘hon nuw be decrded by The dompe‘fen‘r fhe dofe of receIpT/produchon of mw %;3I%Iran%m t.— Gé’Jri/H ed period. IT Is sfafed Tim? There - % ‘Hne ends of Jushce ‘hme is gran‘redl. aufhomfy wwhm four weeks frorr fhe copy of fins order. § ' In +hovr view of ‘l'he marker 109/2005 & 110/2006 and M 303/2006 sfund disposed of of Th Copy of 'fms order be 108/200é4 109/2006 & & 302/2006 (S: 303/2006. ¢~C ‘ § A § e ‘ § Confemp‘r Pefi‘l'ion Nos. 1308/2006, " C. Nos.301/2006, 302/2006 & ls smge. § aioced in ConTempT Pefiiion Nos. 110/2. a 006‘ and M.c.c‘ meow/2006, Sdl- Fakhruddin Judge ~~<oo%&é€r) m&m .1 ,