HIGM COUPT QF CHHAJT^SGAPH • &<LA«BUR wmTPETmOM (C^No 725 of 2009 PFTITinNFR RESPONDENT Mjtilesh Thwari. s/o. Shri Ram Chandra Tivrari, about 45 years, r/o. NamnaRaIa Ring Road Ambikapur, DJstt. Sarguja (CG). Versus State Transport Authority Chhattisgarh D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under ArtJcje 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Singje Bench : Hon'ble Shrs Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Mr. B.K. Chakraborty, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur. Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER. (Passed on this 5trl day of February, With the eonsent of iearned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner, on instructjons, submits that the petitioner does not want to contest this petition on merits at this stage. However, the respondent-authorities may be ciirected to consider and deeide hls pending application dated 22-11-20(^ (Annexure P/1), in acsordance with iaw. on its own merits, as expeditiously as possibie. 3) Shri Thakur, iearned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent submits that there is no reason asto why the representation of the petjtioner. as stated above should not be considered expeditiousiy. Shri Thakur further submite that the above-stated representation shall be considered and decided by the concemed authority, in accordance with the law, on jts own merits. within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ^K3^ .^ ^K ^^rKssy-^ ""•:;\ fsil^'^ '":^ 1 & "'^£%^ I \^J/ ^-^iASS^^ ^ -z Raju 4) in view of the clear statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, according to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner. nothing remains to be adjudlcated. 5) ^cordingly, the petjtjon is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge |»NN»