(JEQggA'I"fISGARH A'LEILAQPUR W WRIT PETITION (C) No. 3319 0f2009 ?ETITIONER : Anwar Ali S/o Shri Saiyad Ahamed Ali, Aged APPLICANT about 40 years, R/o (3-189 Sector « 5, Devendra Nagar Raipur, ‘Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS . State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secrefaw Transport Depariment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTS 2. R§gional Trangpot’t Auihority, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITIDN UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. A nihotri J. Present: 3hri Ajay Sluivastava, Advocata fer the pe’citioner. " Shri Amn Sat)” Government Advécate for the State/respondents. ORDERmRAL) (Passed on 13 day of Ju}y, 2009) Amit v T Heard 1eamed counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instmctions, submits that the petiiioner does not want to contest this petition on merits at this stage. However, the respondent-authorities may be directed to consider and decide his pending application dateii 244.20% (Annexme F/ 1) in accordance with law, on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible. Shri Sao. learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that there is no reason asto Why the representation ofthe petitioner, as stated above should not be considered expeditiously. Shri Sao submits that the above~stated representation shall be eonsidered and decided by the concerned authority, in accordance with law, on its own merits. within a period of four week n‘om the date of receipt ofa copy ofthis order. 3. In ’view ofthe clear statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing remains to be adjudicated. :4. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. , . Sd/- 1' v Satish K. Agnihotri