SIKHA BAGDI Vs. UMA MUKHERJEE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears on behalf of the alleged contemnors/respondents.

(2.) By an order dated 19th August, 2010, the alleged contemnor/respondent No.1 was directed to consider the petitioner's representation within three weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The order was received by the alleged contemnor/respondent No.1 on 24th August, 2010 and thereafter, a notice was issued on 12th October, 2010 for hearing to be held on 9th November, 2010. Although a hearing took place but no decision, which was to be taken within three weeks, has in fact, been taken nor the same been communicated to the authorities within the time specified. Although in the affidavit filed showing cause why a Rule ought not to be issued, by the alleged contemnor/respondent No.1, it has been averred that a Report was sought from the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Saithia ICDS Project with regard to available vacancy but this can be no explanation in not taking any decision in the matter. Accordingly, the cause shown is not sufficient or satisfactory. In fact, on 24th July, 2011, the alleged contemnor/respondent No.1 has been transferred and in her place, the alleged contemnor/respondent No.2 has assumed office. A copy of the contempt application was served on the alleged contemnor/respondent No.2 and in spite of receipt of the same, no step has been taken by the alleged contemnor/respondent No.2 also to implement the order dated 19th August, 2010.

(3.) Accordingly, let a *Rule be issued against the alleged contemnor/respondent Nos. 1 and 2.