Koudusingh Raghuvanshi v. Shri M.M. Shrivastava And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Contempt Case (Civil) No. 386 OF 2014 Koudusingh Raghuvanshi, aged about 52 years S/o Shri Phool Chand Raghuvanshi (Time Keeper) Mazdoor, Mobile No. 08827039269 Office of Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Balod Division, Balod- Pin 491226 Tah. and Distt. Balod (C.G.) ---- Complainant/(Petitioner)

Versus

1. Shri M.M. Shrivastava Supdt. Engineer, P.W.D. Office, Near New Bus Stand, Durg 491001

2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma Sub Divisional Officer-2 P.W.D. Office Rajhararoad, Balod 491226, Tah. & Distt. Balod (C.G.)

3. Shri M. L. Uike, Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Office, Near Collector Office, Balod, -491226 Tah. & Distt. Balod (C.G.) ---- Contemners/(Respondents) For Petitioner : None For Respondents : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, J.

Order On Board 08/08/2017 1.

Heard on admission.

2.

By virtue of this contempt petition, the petitioner is submitting before this Court that the order as passed by this Court on 31/03/2014 (Annexure C-1) has not been complied with and therefore, the respondents be punished for contempt of Court's order.

3.

On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, Advocate for the respondents submits that the representation as submitted by the petitioner has already been

decided well within the time as directed by this Court, therefore, this contempt petition deserves to be rejected.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire record carefully.

5.

By order dated 31/03/2014, this Court has directed as under:- "In view of above, the petition stands disposed of. It the petitioner files fresh representation before the respondents within a period of one month along with copy of petition, the respondent-authorities are directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law on its own merits, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of representation. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter."

6.

As per the aforesaid direction, the petitioner has submitted his representation on 24/04/2014 (Annexure C-2). Upon receiving the said representation, the same was decided by the respondent-authorities vide order dated 10/10/2014 (Annexure R/4). Since the representation has been decided well within the time as directed by this Court on 31/03/2014, therefore, I do not find any merit in this contempt petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (Sanjay Agrawal) Judge Tiwari