gi, UA’ ‘M Singie ganc'n \(W w IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No.4433/2004 PETITI‘ONER : / GEK. Jaiswal, aged about 27 yrs., S/o Late Shri J.P. Jajswal, Proprietor, Auto Farm Agencies, Tifra, District — Bilaspur, (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State o Chhattisgarh through: Secretary, Cooperative Societies, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavsayi Sahkari Vittavm Vikas Nigam, Raipur, (C.G.)~ Chief Executive Officer, Zila Antyavsayi Sahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit, Bilaspur, (C.G‘) 4. Collector, Bilaspur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTCLE 226(227 OFETHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDUMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS I - DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS: The petitioner above named most respectfully submits as under: 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERI The petitioner is a permanent resident of the above address and is a citizen of India. He runs the business 0f sale o£ Escorts Q f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR \ WRIT PETITION NO.4439 OF 2004 PETITIONER G.K. Jaiswal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Shrijit C.S. Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Yogesh Chandra, Advocate appears on behalf of No.2&3. Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the respondents ' ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 29‘ day of November, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to press this petition on merits at this stage, however, the representation dated 4-5—2004 (Annexure — P/5) pending before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, as well as the respondent No.2 may be directed to consider and decide, in accordance with law, as At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is no objection. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the pending representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits within a period of six weeks. expeditiously as possible. 4. ln view of foregoing, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- a San-sh K. Agnihom / Judge .r" l