v9" mg; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 1C1 No. MG? [20,10 PETITIONER ' Narsingh Das Daga Son of late Shiv Das Daga, aged about 79 years, R/o. Daga Building, Shivdas Daga Road, Motibag Chowk, Raipur (co), VERSUS /’ RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Religious Trust 85 Endowment Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), Collector, Ex Officio President of Public Trust, Krishi Gourakshani Sabha Sakari, Raipur (C.G.), Registrar, Public Trust Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6908 of 2010 v : Narsingh Das Daga. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION‘OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri J.K.Shastri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.VShridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Present: ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 013‘ day of December, 20 10) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made an application under the provisions of the Public Trust Act for appointing him as Sarvarakar and Managing Trustee, on 24.09.2009 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, a reminder was also made on 01.06.2010 (Annexure P/4). Till date, no decision has been taken. Shri Shastri submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider and decide his pending application Within a stipulated period. Shri Shridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that the application of the petitioner has been pending for more than a year, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of four weeks. I am unable to understand asto why the respondent authorities are I' taking so much time in taking decision on tlfe application of the WR decide the statutory application/representation in accordance with law, at the earliest. 4. Law in this regard is well settled that a statutory representation or appeal has to be decided within a reasonable time i.e. within 3 to 6 months. A seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, in S.S.Rathore v. State ofMadhya Pradeshl , observed as under: “17. Redressal of grievances in the hands of the departmental authorities taken an unduly long time. That is so on account of the fact that no attention is ordinarily bestowed over these matters and they are not considered to be governmental business of substance. This approach has to be deprecated and authorities on whom power is vested to dispose of appeals and revisions under the Service Rules must dispose of such matters as expeditiously as possible. Ordinarily, a period of three to six months should be the outer limit. That would discipline the system and keep the public servant away from a protracted period of litigation.” 5. In View of the foregoing, the respondent authorities are directed that in the event, the application preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. an l Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri‘; Judge Amit 1 (1989) 4 SCC 582 W