éfww CY” IN TIE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASEWR ”mm-«w. m. ~un.wu~u.mgw _.~-.u.n.“u~--m.-un... “mu...“ mm pmITION No. 2§Af¢gggg/ uw.-u- unuu.g....u..- "an. “nu“ Smt, Geeta Devi, Wife of Shri Jamuna Prasad Tiwari, aged about 5o years, resident * of village : Bandhamuda, Posf : §endra Road, District : fi Bilaspur ( C'G )~ r PETITIONER “.u...u...-u~_m Union of Endia through The Director General of :r\ Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi; RE S PONDEN ‘IS uu.._,..-.-..“nay- State of Chhattisgarh through : The Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Chief Medical Officer, Bilaspur ( C G ). Dr. A'L'Koram, Eye Surgeon Govt. Eye Hbspital, Sanitorium, Pendra Road, Dis-trict : Bilaspur (CG ) The Collector, Bilaspur, Distt : Bilaspur ( C G7) igm o Q‘$ ” ouax‘w‘iw::§:%G UNDER ARTICS _226/227 OF TI'E CONSTITUTION LE OF INDIA ”w—waeaw / HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUii WRIT PETITEON N0. 254 of 2004 PETITIONER : Smt Géeia Devi. VERSUS R RSPONDENTS : Union oflndia & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER AR'l‘ICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION SF INDIA SB: Hon’b'ie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. %. 1 }9resent: Shri Anup Majumdar‘ Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H.S.Ahiuwalia, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 2, 3 and 5. ORDER §0RAL§ y of August, 201 1) " (Pasgcd on 29' da 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1, 2 and 5 to consider the representation and decide it Within the t stipulated time. 2. 0n perusal ofthe document, it is found that the petitoiner has made an application on G6.09.2003 (Annexure P/5) to the Chief Minister, State of Chhattisgarh. There is no representation to the respondent No. 1, 2 and 5, as pleaded in this case. Thus, no such direction can be issued. However, having regard to the facts situation wherein, according to the petitioner. the petitioner is a poor lady and is suffering from loss of vision on account of some operation conducted by the Government doctors, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the authorities for appropriate relief, if so advised. It is further directed that ifthe representation, as aforestated, is made, it is expected that the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible, on its own merits and perspective and in accordance with law. 3. In View ofthe above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/4 Sadsh K. Agnihoui Judge