IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCS6ARH /\T BILASPUR fiBBll BencU -c-°_ 1%-5 CONTEMPT CASEANO. ' '" /2011 //:c -" .^/ ..A< ^" „«" a'y'. <y RESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS 1 PETTTIONER: 1. Snatosh Kumar Chaturvedi, S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Chaturvedi, aged about 47 years, R/o B/397, Adarsh Nagar, P.0. Kusmunda, Dist. Korba (C,6). 2. Jayant Roy, S/ Shri S.N. Roy,aged about 41 years, R/o Qtr. No.B-003, Regional Colony, Post bhanpuri, Dist. Shahdol (M.P). VERSUS 1. Shri N.C Jha, Chairman Coal India Limited 10, N.S Road, Kolkata 700001 2. Shri R. Mohan Das Director (P&IR) Coal India Limited 10, N.S Road, Kolkata 700001 3. Shri A.K Singh Chairman Cum Managing Director South Eastern Coal Field Limited See'pat Road Bilaspur (C.6) <•"" ARISINS OUT OF ORDER bATED 14.01.2011 PASSED IN •</" W.P,(S) 202/2011 CONTEMPT CASE UNDER SECTIONT2 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971. The above named petitioner respectfully begs to submit as under: 1 an^i ^T R;.)!* ~^siTT SH^T sfi*l ^ Ni*<fir ^qrai ^^ '<<i<4Ki<<, ^TflyJ!<», f^ciiyy ...C^.kr3b...L^^lJlS/jj_ 200 sn^T'T^i' (' TCiIWdfSct SII^I |SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 25.8.2011 Shri Arviad Kuniar Dube^ Shri Praveen Das, counsep. for respondent No.3. •«•• Heard on adnaission. cni<i[fi*i1t iTTO^f "4 fe'^t' <F<1'<^1< ^siRnan^r , counsel for the petitioners. This petition has been disobedience oforder dated 22.1 Court, wherein, directions wer^ of fhe petitioners. dled by the petitioner alleging wiUful 17.2010 and 14.1.2011 passed by this issued to decide fhe representation In fhe retura, which has has been stated that vide ordeil concemed aufhority has di| petitioners by a detailed order| have been raised by them. counsel for the respondent No| ttus Court has been compUed) |aow been ffled by respondent No. 3, it |dated 14.5.2011 (Annexiire R-l), fhe fccided the representation of the tafter considering aU the issue which Referring to the avermbnts m.ade in the return, learned 3 subm.its that the order passed by with. It is also submitted that fhe respondent, at no point of 1^m.e, had any intention to flout or disobey the direction or order |passed by fhis Court and some tune Qonsumed in examinuig the smiilarly situated einployee ol uruntentional and bona fide. case of fhe peti.tioners and ofher the respondent-Company, which is -..r'.---' ^^^^^V^-r' 1-+ 'vgS^S., t ^ -• -..^.--•••^^ ^- •^.^y.f VJ^ XI-HC—78 ~s^( '^wiVi^, 9-a\w\e, [~^v\wy. *iwpsT^»»<rai "^ 200 sn^i TPR>' ('^{3^1) sn^r ^ii Wi'h ?TSTT3TT^T St)*llcti Prayeen T^TOIT ^lfef 3ll^f z- petitioners have been finally (^ (Aiuiextire R-l) and also takin| ^l<4(ci4ll '(ffq^ff ^f fec^ <pi(^k ^sifinan^a Considering the submissijsn inade by learned couusel for fhe parties, takuig ia.to considerujig that the representation of fhe ecided vide order dated 14.5.2011 into consideration the contents of reply of respondent No.3, I am ijiot incliaed to proceed further ia ffae matter. disctlar The rule is fherefore fhe petitioners to take recourse to fhem agatast fhe order dated The petition is aceordiagy ^ed. However, it would be open for to such remedy as m.ay be avaflable 14.5.2011 (Aimexure R-l). finaUy disposed of. »."•"-"s"'"'"'"' -I-