INTHEHIGHCOURT_OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH') 2-8oS §?! WRIT PETITION N0. QF2006 .£ PETITIONER \P}0..--^> /O \.-n,/Q-.-t'' ^^ vS"-'' •,'^*' ..*' '!y R.ESPQNDENTS '^ ^ \(sf J. S. Gaikwad Son of Shri Dharmuram Gaikwad, aged about 60 yeas, Suspended Deputy Registrar, presently residing at Durg, District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of <^ Commercial Tax, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Inspector General, t"' Registration, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The District Registrar, Durg, (C.G.). ^ WRIT PETLTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN_QEJNDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE -1AIUR.E_QF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION ETC. 'SSI •^WM^, VS^WW, RlMIUy sn^r^rR-fi* aw STI^T sh*i * t ~?' s-' ^ ~'<< *ii*iwi ^*Tra> te .M^.^0- 200 3<i^i ><a«h ('i,ci!35«<,'sr) ?Rmsrc;8feT3n^T hirti 16.6.200S:- Shri V.K. Pandey, oounset f(j) Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Qo\ Heard boft the counsel. The main grievance raised he was working as Deputy Regisfi criminal case insfituted against the IPC read with Sections 13 (1)| Act, 1988 and later on, he was act vide Annexure-P/2 on 24-9-200SI representation Annexure-P/3 for nolhing has been done. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a representatiijin passjng any order regarding contemplated against th^ petitione|i being revoked. Learned oounsel already been made to respondents| iherefore, respondent No.2 be d| petitioner to which learned counsel | Having heard learned coun^i facts and circumstances of the cast petitioner is just, fair and reasonatjle to decide representation of the today, in accordanoe with law. With the direction aforesaidj Parties are entitled for certifit Qovt t}y the petilioner in Ihis petition is thal while (rar, he was suspended on account of a under Sections 120-B, 420 and 471 of [d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption ^uitted in the said case by the trial Court Thereafter, the petitioner moved a r^instatement and other benefrts but so far tiwlcltfl-) XltltlTfffeldl <R|WK ^sri^Tsn^T r the petitioner. t. Advocate for the State/ respondents. p^tifioner submitted that after acquittal the but the respondents authorities are not reinst^tement of the petitioner and no enquiry is jr, even then the suspension order is not |further submitted that representation has |No-2 and 3 but no order is being passed, [reoted to decide represenlation of the ]for respondents has no objection. jel for the parties and having regard to the i, prayer made by !earned counsel for the i, therefore, respondent No.2 is directed p^titioner within a period of 30 days from the petition stands disposed of. sd copy of this order. Sd;- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^ ^^\ ^"