SMRI F BENC^ §S^S"s^..-f. fcf S,.,?''''•"';'' 1;1 WW<- ^^ ^--^^7_ /^~~ :NT] [E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.S. N0.^u ;Ti .^)^ Y^i6^ -o v/-^pv^ /^^' /<^<>"" $>••''i^'N>-" •<^'\<-y; ^y 's<^/ v^ 35 years, Sahu, S/o Shri Sahu, aged about [ora Rode / 2. As C.G. VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, ^2. >* 3. Executiye Eneineer P. WRIT PETITION tl'NDERASTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTI'IirTION.OF INDIA. . ' —*•' HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETmON (-S) No. 6813 of2009 PETmONERS RESPONDENTS : Narayan Prasad Sahu & another. VERSUS The State ofChhattisgM-h & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE226/227 OFTHE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA - •—" : ;• • -. ; • SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asmhotri. J. Present: Smt. RaiuKochaf.Advoeatefor'Siepetititmer. Shri A-V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for tlle StaWre^ondetits. ORDERrQRAD (Passed on20tB dayof November,2009); With the consent of leamed couasel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard fmally. 1. The petiticuiers have filed this petition elaimmg appointmetA on compassionatebasisaslhehusbandoffhepetitionerNo. 2namelyRaja Ram Sahu, who was workiag on the post of Watchmen ia fhe Public Works Dq)artment, Bilaspur, died in hamess, on 24 June,2008 (AnneinirefII). 2. From pemsal oftherecord, it appears tfaat Ihe.petitioner No. 2 has made ,a representation on 26 October, 2009 (Annexure P/2)to tiie respondent No. 2 (Annexure - P/2).. Since the r^resentatioB is pendini consideration, no writ is maintamable. 3. A sevenjudges Bench ofthe SupremeCourt mS.S. ^afAore vs.Sfate o/ Madh^'a Pradesh, observed that m every such case only wfaen tiie 1(1989)4SCC%2 SE...^N w ]V appeal or representation provided by law is disposed o£cause ofaction shall first accme and where such order is not made, on the expiry of six months from the date when the appeal was filed or representation was made, the right to sue shall first aceme. The petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition within a period of 20 days from making ofthe representation, without giving reasonable time to the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation and pass order. The petitioners oy^-it to have waited till decision of fhe representation; or six months, whatever is earlier. Thus, the present petition cannotbe entertained atfhis stage. In view of foregoms and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself, as not bein^ mamtamable. However, it is expectedthat the respondent No. 1, before whomthe representation dated 26.10.2009 (Aimexure - P/2) is pending consideration, shall consider and decide the representation, in accordance with law and on its owa merits, as eady as possible preferably wifhin a reasonable time. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit