a.- EN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.Nd. 2005 - Petitioner ............... NarayanPrasadHarihamoaged 37 years SonofShriR.L.Harihamo,Aceountant, Community Health Centre, Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) 'l/af'^^""J.-' ^s^^:^- .-^&;N^:5':.---""" 1<K :^"^^- •-^\^-^-"" Versus 1. The State Govemment ofChhattishgarh, Through fhe Secretary, Muustry ofHealtU & Family Wetfare Deptt., D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The ChiefMedical & Health Officer, Durg (C.G.) ^ Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Gonstitution ufIndia for the issuance ofWRIT in the natUFe ofMandamuscertiorari, Prohibition and fbr any other suitable writ orwrits OrderOrjUrdersf, direction or directions. XI-HC-22 an^f^ii i^iwai^i ?h+11<^-^l[?tT y •^^[pi-Rra.^'a'dl.aijgrfawi'Hy- W*R'f[%HI% :^&&^(a'^^ 11% :'*:'f '-''-' "'OTi^. 2CO 311^1'reiTWt'Hftg 5-12-2005 Shti' N.L.Stirivastava, CQUnsel foi] Slui Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer| Heard. . Coun^el -for the petitioner sufamt^ ctii^i<Ti<fli +1 I+ICT'I' ^f fgt^ <Pn+$K ^T aifigtt gn^t ' . per Annexure P-1 dated 14-11-2005 dutfng the bah period. He subauts that for 'the present he may be givefl an opportia)ity to make a representation before the resgondents. ^ : • Haviug considered atfd without ejqM-essing any dpimon 6n thfr merits of (he case, iri the opinion of this Court, ends o^ to the petitioner to make a defailed repi^ competent authofity ofrespondents alon^ with a copy ofthe petition and t^ witfain 15 days ffom feday aad on sucit representation Being ffled, the competenf authprity of respondeilts sha]]^decide tiw jsame on its own meiits m accoi'dance-wiflt law as earfyas possible preferaSlyjreigiin represeatation. Itis made clearthatifan^ It is directed Aat tf (he petittbiier ;ontinue tillfherepresentationisdecided. Withthe aforesaidobservatioiis, tfa^s petitioiistands disposedof; Consequentb- M.W.P.No. 4897/2Q05 also stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules; Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge tfae petifioner. ' for the State, on advance copy. that the petitioner has been trangfelTed as justice wiB fee servedifa dirgction is giyen sentation raisjng his grievances before the two numths IronrAe date^ofi'eceipt of tfae gaevancewmams, lIwpstiBonwmay a^ ttie remedv ayailableUnder ilie law. eounseliurther submits that the itetitioner h^ not beea relieved aad Ke may be aUowedto c6ntmuetiBfhedecisibnof1|iere}M'esentation. (ias aot heen refieved, ^heinay be aBowed to S~r