e §••1dd JPBSSP'5 "•• 'tKMfC i!NlsLI: l{S:a!fc1 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ./••• ..••••l',-,^..'"' ^3y^Y^'"^- ^..^^y ..-•••"" W.P. N0. f2-3.^/2006fSB) Service Matters. ./" ^PETITIONER RESPONDENTS /l Asim Das aged about 38 years, s/o Shri S. M.Das, r/o Q. No.71-B, Ruabanda Sector, P.0. Bhilai Distt.Durg (C.G.) (Designation : Pharmacist, P.No. 154290, Medical Department.) VERSUS Steel Authority oflndia Ltd, Bhilai Steel Plant through Managing Director, P.0. Bhilai, Distt. Durg ( C. G.) /I. Director, Medical & Health Services, Bhilai Steel Plant, P.0. Bhilai, Distt. Durg. (C. G.) /3. General Manager, Township, Bhilai Steel Plant, P. O. Bhilai, Distt. Durg. ( C. G.) ^ WRIT- PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA- FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND ANY OTHER WRIT / DIRECTION/ ORDER, ^ HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILA8PUR Sin^e Bench: Hon'ble Shrl Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 123S OF 2006 Petitioner : Asim Das Versus Respondents : Steel Authority of India Ltd, & Ors. Shri B.R. Ghosh, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri P.Diwakar, senior counsel with Miss. Sunita Jaui, counsel for the respondents. ORAL QRDER (30th March, 2006) 1. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to life imprisonnieiit. 2. Consequently, fhereupon B.S.P. by its order dated 24.7.2001 (Annexure P-1) terminated the seryices of the petitioner iinder Clause 32 Standiag Orders (Plant). 3. The petitioner was directed by ttie sanie order to vacate conipany's quarter in his occupation, withia a period of one inonth. It was fiirther stated that faUing which, he shatl be Uable to be evicted linder the Provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupaats) Act1971. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner subiaits that the petitioner should not vacate comjiany's quarter because the petitioner was serving life imprisonment in jaU. 5. The petitioner has filed fhis petition on 8.3,2006 after a period ofabout five years. 6. The petition deserves to be dismissed firsfly on fhe grouiid of the unexplained aad uiordiaate delay, secondly, the impugned order dated 24.7.01 is perfectly valid and legal, keeping in view the facts of fhe case fhat the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 307 of fhe Indiaa Penal Code and he was sentenced to life imprisouine.nt For the reasons stated above, fhe petition is disiidssed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge LuO'