1 2025:CGHC:3511 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1443 of 2024 1 - Mridul Upadhyay S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Aged About 49 Years R/o Mig-S 369 Phes-2 Near Pani Tanki Kabeer Nagar Raipur C.G 2 - Akansha Pandey W/o Shri Mridul Upadhyay Aged About 45 Years R/o Mig-S 369 Phes-2 Near Pani Tanki Kabeer Nagar Raipur C.G ... Applicant(s) versus Pratik Jain Aged About 28 Years Ceo Raipur Devlopment Authority Bhakta Mata Karma Parisar New Rajendra Nagar Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agrawa, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 17/01/2025 1. This contempt petition has been preferred by the applicants under Article 215 of the constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for non-compliance of Order dated 10.5.2024 passed in WPC No.687/2024. 2. This Court has passed following order in WPC No.687/2024 in para 5, annexed as Annexure-A/1. “5) Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the authority concerned to decide the pending representation of the petitioners preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in an objective manner.” BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.01.21 12:19:38 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that representation filed by the applicants has been decided by the respondent authorities on 15.01.2025, but all the expenses made by the applicants are not being paid. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that order under contempt has been complied with. 5. Vide Order dated 10.5.2024, this Court has directed the respondent authorities to decide the representation filed by the applicants within a period of 120 days. Since the representation has already been decided by the respondent authorities, as such, order has been complied with, thus, no case of contempt is made out. Hence, the instant contempt petition is disposed of. 6. If the applicants are not satisfied with the order passed by the respondent authorities with regard to their representation, then such fact gives fresh cause of action to the applicants, it could be termed as non-compliance of order passed by the Court. Therefore, they may take recourse to law for redressal of their grievance. 7. In view of the above, the instant contempt petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini