@ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH w.P. (c1 No. @94/ 2608 “’"§ésanta Kumar Sahu, S/o. Shri Satyabadi Sahu, aged about 22 years, Occupation Constable CISF No 062310349 CISF' Unit BSP Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Union of India Through :- Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi W, 2. Inspector General , Central Industrial Security Force Nw Delhi W‘ 3. Deputy inspector General CISF Unit BSP Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) f, 4. ‘ District Magistrate Angul Orissa x WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ e H" C URT WIEt Petition (Q) Na. 836 9t 20% WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CDNSTTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench : Hon‘bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. shri Abhishek $inha, Standing Counsel for the respondents. :m ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 11‘“ day of February, 2008) The petitioner has tiled this petition seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide his pending appeal dated 1.12.2007 (Annexure Pl3), in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appeallrepresentation (Annexure P/3) is addressed to the inspector General of Police. C.l.S.F. Western Region, Mumbai and the postal receipt indicates inspector General of Police. New Delhi. it is not knon whether this has been received or not. if the same has been received, that shalt be considered and decided, as expeditiously as possible. The alleged appealirepresentation was made only in the month of December, 2007. CHHATT A H Ti ()r w Petitioner Basanta Kumar Sahu. Sic. Shri Satyabadi Sahu, aged about 22 years, Occupation Constable CISF No 06231 0349 CISF Unit BSP Bhiiai. Distt. . Durg (6.6.) Vef3us Respondents 1. Union of india Through :- Ministry of Home Affairs New Deihi. 2. inspector Generai. Central industrial Security Force New Delhi. 3. Deputy inspector General C!S‘F Unit BSP Bhilai. Diett. Burg (C.G.) 4. District Magistrate Angul .Orissa In View of the foregoing, nothing survives in this petition. Even otherwise, this Court should not issue a writ of direction in every matter. to decide the appeal/representation, as expeditiousty as possibte. Thus. the matter stands dismissed. Sdl— / ‘Satish K. Agnihotrif Judge i Thakurv