HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GAIUI A'lJiILASPUB WRIT PETmON fSy No. 4984 of2008 PETmONER RE8PONDENT8 : Girish Kumar Kuldeep S/o Shri Ja^noh^n Kuldeep, Aged abottt 30 years, 1eUo- Wm-d No. 4; Nayapara^ Mahasamund District IMahasaniund (C.G.) VER8U8 : 1. rrhe State of Chhattisgarfi Through the Secretary, Agricultixre Department Govemm^it of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Under Searetary, Agricultare Dqpartment Govemiiieiit of Chhattisgarh, Maiitralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistmit Latid Conservator Qfficer, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Suml Ghodesawar, Draftsmaii, Qffice of the Assistant Land Conservator Okfficer, E&amtari District Dhfantari (C.G.) PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OP INDIA SB: Hon*ble Sta4 Satish K. AgnUiotel, J. Present: Shri Y.C.Sharma^ Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri M.P-S.Bhatia, Deputy Govermiient Advocate for the State/ respondeiitNo. lto3. ' ORALORDER (Passed on 0981 day of Sq)t^nber, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearme for the petition^, on iBistructioias, sutxnits tisat Ae petationer does not want to press this petition on merits at fhis Mage. Howev^, tlse respondent authorities may be dlrected to consider aiid dedde fhe patidmg representation dated 25.07.2008 (Axmexure P/31 m accordance with law, ^ expeditiously as possible. 2. Shri Bhatia; leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respond^its 1 to 3 submits fhat fliere is no reason asto why tfie rqpreseiitation ofthe petiticm^ as stated above shoyld notbe considered expeditiously. Shri Bhatia submits tfaat tie 'i"x^^^ -2- above-stated representation shall be considered and dwided by fee concemed authority. m accordance with law; cn its own merits. witfain a period ofthre^ weeks fi"om the date of receipt of a copy of tfais order. Stari Bhatia forfher submits that no coercive steps shall be taken. titl the dfepos^l of fhe representation. 3, I hope and tmst that tfae State Govemment shall exOTime tibie representation objectively in acccrdance wifh law and ^iidelmes, i^ued by the Gov^nnm^ timetotime. 4. In view of foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto coste. Consequently, I.A. No. l^ applicatioii for mterim relie^ also staiids disposed of Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge