G. V. Raman v. Shri Om Prakash Shrivastav And ANR.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Contempt Case (C) No. 378 of 2015 G.V. Raman, S/o. Late G.D. Rao, aged about 68 years, R/o Quarter No.LIG-62, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur Civil Lines, Bilaspur. ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Om Prakash Shrivastava, Managing Director, Head Office, Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Head Office Habib Ganj, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
2. Shri Alok Katiar, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Transport Section), Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur.
----Respondents For Applicant :
Ms. Veena Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 28/09/2015 (1) Heard.
(2) This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 19.03.2014 passed in WP(S) No.1135 of 2014.
(3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even though a direction was issued to verify the claim of the petitioner and process their claim as per the direction of the Court, given in the case of G.K. Gupta Vs. The Managing Director and others in WP(S) No.6510 of 2009 and batch of petitions decided on 04.07.2011 and
Writ Appeal No.419 of 2011 with batch of appeal decided on 16.07.2012, till date, no steps have been taken nor claim of the petitioner settled.
(4) The order passed by the Court on 19.03.2014 does not prescribe any time limit, however, even when no specific time limit has been prescribed, the order of the Court is required to be complied with within a reasonable time and the matter cannot be kept pending for indefinite period. More than 1 1⁄2 years have elapsed since the order was passed by this Court. Therefore, in these circumstances, the respondents are obliged to take appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner without further loss of time. A copy of this order may be placed by the petitioner before each of the respondents. If no orders are passed as directed earlier within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, which is now being passed, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive contempt petition. (5) Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-