ata£aanani@)aiuBl * 1 f Sirsgte I"?eoch@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. B-3 OF 200^' PETITIONER .Loknath Patel, S/o Bihari Patel, Aged about 59 years, Occupation - Teacher, R/o Primary School Jampali Post Usroth, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ..<s\.yj 1. State of Chhattisgarh Secretary, T&^ .< .€-y^ Education Department D.K.S. Building Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh (C.G.) ./ ;.ft ^y) 3. The Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) ^ <-^^' 4. The Principal Middle School, Usroath, Tahsil 8& Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/S 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA *^' VQ -f- ^i^r^T^w ^^?^i^1fi^HW W^^lt VK^ •^^ '^?raT^r, '^ftWTs, 'f^rray qNi-u^--cwfl-Aa-)^'Wl200 (^t^^) ^iIW^ft^^ll 28/U1/2005 coiinsel Snit, Indira Tripafhi, Shri Akhil Agrawal, P. L. Heaid on I.A. No. 213/2J305 The instao-t petitfon ha^ groiuid that he had challengecjl by filrag a Writ Petition No. 2| tliis Court vide order dated 2^ respondents to decide the petitioner withui six weeks, Learaed counsel for tlie fhe representation vide Anne^ irpt beeu decided by the resp^ by fh.is Gourt, The docunient representation of the petitio.T^] counsel for the petitiouer weeks by which tlie over, Even fhen they have notl as such a violation of the Coui respondents should be representation of tlie petitione^ I have heard fhe leai'nedl The order of Annexure specific and clear aad tf tlt compliaiice of tlie above ordej further represen^ation ^Fifef^ ^fFmt °?ft^t' <Fsi^« ^stfeHsn^ for the petitioner, For the State. jfor urgent hearing, It is allowed. been filed by fhe petitioner on the tiie traiisfer order of Annexure P-1 >59/ 2004 which was disposed of by 0/08/2004 wifh a direction to tiie representation subniitted by tlie betttbnerisubiaits that he subniitted ?ture P-4 aad P-7 but the saiiie has |)ndents despite categorical direction l>fAnnexure P-5 estabUshes that the )fcr is under consideratiou. Leanied siibmits that the period of six was to be decided is ali'eady [decided the representation aiid it is |:l's oider. However, it is prayed tiiat fl.irther directed to decide tlie which is pendia.g, |counsel for the petitioner. P-2 passed by fhis Court is veiy fc4.e petitioiier is aggrieved by non ^, he is at libert}' to raovesuitable Gi- PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. -p- zs an^T^r^iw ^IT •c' '3^.^rraM^,'^RFr?, I^TR^ "w^vw^^^ .kl:..(i:>:^......&%> Ins^^,200 ^^'^^(^fg^N') ^CTIi? ^ft^ 3i?^T -ei - application under fh.e law and is for direction to fhe ret tlie pctitio"rt(';i" in. nofr 'rrreiataroi ^ecoud petitlon ofsiiailar reHefthat to consicler th.e representation of neTataiaaJDlc azid accordiagly, the petitton is ssponde^ts clisiiiissed, Cousequently, I.A. No. 2 lp/2005 staads disposed of ^T^te^ft^ W*^ °^fc^t ifa^R •^^H^M Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Gi. PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,OQO. ^ ^ ^