IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION S No. 62' [2011 / Ratneshwar Thakur, CISF No. 054450013, s/o Late Amir Thakur, Aged about 51 years. r/o — c/o NTPC — CISF, PO - Ujjawal Nagar, Seepat 495555, District — Bilaspur (CG) PERMANENT RESIDENT OF — Cyp Ranchi Road, Pratap Colony, ‘.‘.V,.~..« w. " " M \A/A) .............. . PO — Marar, Hazaribagh, W” District — Hagaribagh (JHARKHAND) Petitioner Versus i1. Central industriai Security Force, Through its Director-Generai, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Respondent No.1 Commandant, Central Industriai Security Force, KSTPP, Korba, District— Korba (CG) Respondent No. 2 Deputy Commandant, NTPC — CISF Unit, Seepat, District — Bilaspur (CG) Respondent No. 3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.624 OF 2011 PETITIONER Ratneshwar Thakur Versus RESPONDENTS Central lndustrial Security Force & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish Kr Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. - Ms Fouzia Mirza, Assistant 'SoIicitOr General with Shri R.S. we I Baghel, standing counsel for the respondents/CISF. ORDER {ORAL} 1. (Passed on this 2" day of February, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a directions to the respondents consider and decide the representation dated 4—8-2010, which was fon/varded on 7-8-2010 (Annexure — P/6) for consideratign. 3. A the very outset, Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Seamed Assistant’Solicitor General appearing with Shri R.S. Baghel, learned standing counsel for the respondents/CISF, submits that the Committee'has already been constituted to consider the representations like the present one. The case ofthe petitioner has already been forwarded for consideration. Accordingly, the Committee shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with Iaw ' and on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible. 4. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothingsurvives in this petition for adjudication. 5. ‘ ACcordingIy, the writ petition is disposed of. W W Sd/—' Gowri i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge