IN THE HIGH coum OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION No.33W6F 2005 PETlTlONER x J.S.Walia, S/o Late ShriM.S. Ahluwalia, aged about 50 years, Occupation -Service, presently posted as Engine Zonal Office, Chhattisgarh Stat Warehousing Corporation, 22 Anand Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), R/o Care Shri Rakesh Trivedi, Near Baji Mandr, Anand Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS x1. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office at 22, Anand Nagar, Raipur (CG) through its Managing Director. /2. Managing Director,Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office at 22,Anand Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) / 3. P. C. Jha, substantively holding post ofJunior Superintendent, presently holding the charge of O/o The Manager (Technical), Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office at 22, Anand Nagar, Raipur (CG) G. N. Tiwari, Sub Engineer Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office at 22, Anand Nagar, Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS: The petitioner, above-named, most respectfully submits as under: - 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in the Cause Title above. er, e la i / 25-11-2005 Shri Manindra Shrivas¢ava, senioradvocate with Shri A. Das and Shri BD. Guru learned cc unsel for the petitioner None for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is working as ASstt. Engineer, Ciass-ii empioyee has tiled thi petition challenging the apporintment of respondent No. 3 as Enquiry Offiber and respondent No. 4 as Enquiry Assistant. According to the petitioner, the petitioner held an enquiry against respondent No. 3 earlier and he is junior to' 1im. The petitioner has filed several representations before the c etent‘authority for change of Enquiry Officer and‘Officer Assistant. t The combpetent authority Le. respondent No. 2 has’not taken any deci ion on the representations made by the ‘ petitioner. The petitioner see s for a direction against the respOndent No. 2’to decide his represen tions made earlier expeditiotrsly. Learned counsel appe ring for the respondent No. 1 & 2 have no objection. ln view of th the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide his repre entation dated 20.5.2005 Annexure‘ P-5 within four weeks from the d te of receipt of this order in accordance with Law; Thus. this petition stan s disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/— W Satish K~ Agnilmm Judge _ [stow s t o p a, m:¥fz::. XI—HC—22 ‘saammwtamnma g “'“E'WW ‘ . ...i.... 3m (A {J Mohrxag m f Wt l’ / 30¢, .290 W<Wdwm . %6TW311%$T WWW