IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) / w.P.No. I 967 /2oo4 / PETITIONER V Radheshyam aged about 40 years Q NO! son of Shrl Dharam Slngh res1dent of v111age — Kherda, Post Office — /\ Surdung, Tah Durg, D1stt Durg (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS The Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, through : Its Secretary, Danganiyan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). D1v151ona1 Engineer The (Communicatlon and Maintenance), Durg D1v151on D1stt Durg (Chhattisgarh) The Collector, Distt. Durg (C.G.) \ WRIT PETITION UDNER ARTICLES 226/22 OF - THE ’CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN FORM OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER FOR OUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2004 y " mmmafaa ‘ WW W®1§R asai‘icmm S a $ J. B : Hon’bie Shri I'Vianindra Moh hrivastava. 11=94=2911 Shri Sai Khan, counsei for th petitioner. f Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsei for the respondent No.1. Learned counsei for the peti ioner submits that the iand belonging to the father of the petitioner was a .uired by the respondent. it has been averred in the petition that any'Bo rdiCompanyiEstablishment/Faotory, who acquired iand of the iand owner the he is iiabie to pay compensation for the iand after due caicuiation as per the provisions and to provide appointment in View of the iand acquired. The p titioner has aiso raised grievance with regard to paymentvof compensati n. it has been submitted that severai representations were made (Anne ure PM to PIE), which have not been taken into consideration by the resp ndents. Learned counsel for respond nt No.1 submits that the .Eiectricity Board has been dissoived and it is succee ed by different companies. Though time was granted by he Court to the respondents, but tiii date: no repiy has been fiied. This matt has remained pending since 2064‘. in these circumstances, it wouid be pr per to issue direction to respondent no.2 to consider the representation mad by the petitioner and decide the claim of the petitioner. As the respondents ave not fiied any document before this Court nor have submitted any reply to demonstrate that any action has been taken on the representation of the etitibner, respondent no.2 is directed to take decision on the representation of the petitioner withtn a period of three months from the date of receipt of c py of the order. With the aforesaid observ tions/‘directions, the petition is finaiiv disposed off. i Sd/-. y”- Manindra Mohan Shrivastavay‘gi h jh‘dge