HIGH COITRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER Writ Petition (S) No. 772 of2008 G.D. Kada S/o Late Shri Nathoo Ram Kada, aged about 59 years, Retired Assistant Director of Industries^ O/o Directorateoflndustries, Raipur. Residiiig at 94 Jawahar Nagar^ Diirg (Chliattisgarh). YERSU8 ME8P0NDiENTS : 1. State of Clihattisgarh tlirough the Additional Chief Secretary, Depanmeiit of Coimiierce and Industries, DKS Bhawan, Maiitralaya, Raipur. 2. The Psincipai Secretaiy, Departmetit of Commerce and Iiidustry, DKS Bhawan, Maiitralaya, Raipur. (^VEJT PETITION LJNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JNDTA) rSB: Hon'fele Mr. Satish K. Agniho<n. J.^ Present : Sl-ri B.P. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondente. ORALORDER (Passed on 06th ofFebruary, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner subniits that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Principal Secretary, Department of CoiiiiTierce and Industries, Go^. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, against the order dated 18.04.2006, on 10.08.2006 (Aimexiire P/7). Despite several-applicatioiis, the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pendmg consideration. 2. The petitioner preferred a Writ Petitioii, seekiiig a direction against the concemed officer to consider and decide the matter, iii accordance with law. Tliis Court, by order dated 13.06.2007 in W.P.(S) No. 3195/2007 (G.K« Kada Vs. State ofClihattisgarh and others) observed as the petitioner is at liberty to make an application for expeditious disposal of the appeal pending consideration before the authority, 011 the gromid that the petitioner is likely to retire iii the next month. 3, Leamed eounsel ,ftirther subniits tliat the petitioiier has made an application for expeditious disposal of the appeal but still no action has been taken by '-^•^s.^w^sssg.aW.ueM...^.-s^^.^..^^^.^ the officer concemed. I do not imderstand why the concemed officer i.e. Prmcipal Secretary, Department of Conmierce and Industries, DKS Bhawaii, Maiitrlaya, Raipur, is not considermg liis appeal, keeping m view the urgency in appeal as the petitioner is likely to retire in the next month. 4. Be that as it may, iii the interest ofjustice, the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the appeal ofthe petitioner iii accordance with law, on its own merit, within a period ofthree weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order. 5. With the above directioii, this petition staiids disposed of No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge