High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCC/308/2017disposed off

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Krishna Lal Netam

2017-07-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 32 of 2017 Krishna Lal Netam S/o Shri B.R.Netam, Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Sub Engineer, Kanker, R/o In Front Of Sai Mangalam, Vidyut Nagar, Durg, Police Station- Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri G. S. Mishra Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Shri H.R. Kutare, Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Sihava Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............(Contemnors) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 :

Shri J.P. Shukla, Advocate And MCC No. 308 Of 2017

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Kanker District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Vs Krishna Lal Netam S/o Shri B.R.Netam, Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Sub Engineer, Kanker, R/o In Front Of Sai Mangalam, Vidyut Nagar, Durg, P.S. Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioners : Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Additional Advocate General For Respondent :

Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate

-2S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 10/07/2017 Heard.

1. While there is petition for initiating contempt proceedings against respondent officer for non-compliance of order dated 26.8.2016, there is an application (MCC) filed by the State for extending the time for compliance of the said order on the ground that because of the delay in receiving information, the decision could not be taken and there is no intention to flout the order of the Court.

2. Be that as it may, respondent-State cannot indefinitely postpone the decision on the ground of delay in communication. Whether or not the communications are received, the authority should now proceed to decide the matter one way or the other within a period of 6 weeks from today. No further extension would be granted.

3. Both the petitions are accordingly finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen