PETITIONER x<°éé€ «J (g... VERSUS 1. ‘ $§N$EE Em?” Q) E (' Ajay Kumar Khalkho, S/o. Shri Bodhan Ram Khalkho Office Raipur (C.G.). State Through Transport Secretary, Raipur (C.G.) Transport Commissioner Ravi Nagar Shukla Colony, Raipur (C.G.). of Chhattisgarh, Deputy Commissioner, (C.G.). Transport Raipur IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION M2571? /2005 K WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. aged about 27 years, Assistant Grade—III, Transport Commissioner XI-HC-22 ' ‘ I ‘ 3am, m,W - WW, ' V‘.k§0.;..37z.—K..W{ _ ,..f W WWW . > WWW§WW aammm . 12.08.2005 _ , Shri Ajay Shrivastavaw,rr(r:ounsel"for the peu'tioher. V Shli Arun Sag; Dy. Govt Advocafe for the State on advance cow. ‘ ’ ‘ ‘ V ~ Heard on adéimission; . ¥ ‘ _ By way of this wn‘t pemion med dimer Article 226/227 of‘the . Consiitution of India; the pe tiiioner has mainly H prayed for a direction to respondent No. 2 r- disposal of the application'd‘ated 11. 1 1.20032 (mm-P] 2), w ‘ch he had med for gemng certmcd copy of some documents. The case of the petition is that he is working as Assistant Grade—III, in the onice o respondent No. 2 (Transport Commissioner, Raipur). He de an application dated 11.11.2003 to respondent No. 2 for sup lying the certilied copy of certain i. documents as .mentioned ' the .4 application. The application i indicates that the petitioner s demanded the copy of page Nos. 24 8r. 25 of his personal reco s, which has been kept in the 0&3 of respondent No. 2. The. titioner has not mentioned in the application as to whether the e copies can be deiivered to him as public document or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that When an application is madejthny omcc rf or any onice for demanding certain documents, its a dih'erent matter as to Whether the copies of those documents should be supplied or not under the governing rules) XI-HC—22 but the application- must‘bej accordance with law. The submission made, petitioner seems to be reasonable. this stage that the respondent application dated 11. 11.2003 orders on it. ~ This prayermade by opposed by the learned counsel In the facts'and‘cn‘cu'msmnces the respondent No. 2 i.e. shall look into the matter and 11.11.2003 (Annexure—P/2) date of production of copy of _ and also with a photo copy and the mceiptof depositing Annexure-P/3. With ‘the aforesaid disposed of. Consequently, M.W.P. No. of. disposed of on iw own merits in_ by the learned counsel for the 'He makes this limited prayer at a No.2 be diiected to tlispose of this (Annexuxe-P/ 2) by passing some leained counsel for the petitioner is not i for the State. I of the case, it is directed that Transport Commissioner, Raipur, C.G. dispose of copying application dated within a period of one week non: the 1his order along with an applicanon of the application dated 11.11.2003 rupees 20 nled before this Court directions, the petition stands nnally 3132 of 2005 also stands disposed 733/— SunilKumar Sinha i a Judge (disses)