HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR ^ WRIT PETITION fCl N0.6592/2011 PETITIONER Mukesh Sharma S/o Shri Ramji Sharma, aged about 57 years, resident of Village- Lailunga (Shanti Nagar), Tahsil- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Principal Secretary, Nagariya Prashashan, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Collector, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 3. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 4. Tahsildar, Lailunga Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 5. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA. Appearance: Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate forthe petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents 1 to 4. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatiya, Advocate for respondent No.5. SUNIL KUMAR SINHAJ. Heard. ORALORDER (11.11.2011) The petitioner was having a shop in specified area of Lailunga Market. The respondent No.5 issued notice to the petitioner on 23.01.2009 for vacating the land. Since it was a government land, the petitioner vacated the same in compliance of the said notice. It was given to understand to the petitioner that after construction of the shops, one new shop shall be allotted to the petitioner on account of his long occupation of the land. When no shop was allotted to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were allotted shops in ^^^^^^ ., N ^csr^ ff\ ^ ^s^^^ i ^ .» /'/ \:^ ft?-,.,^,;^." ^ •r,^., '••^:'''v' .^^' <- WRIT PETITION (0 N0.6592Q011 the same market, then the petitioner filed a representation and thereafter, a writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) 1051/2010 was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14th of September, 2010 with the order that "If the petitioner is similarly situated as other persons to whom the shops in question were allotted, a liberty is reserved for petitioner to make an application indicating his income. If the income of the petitioner on verification is found more or less or equal to that of other persons who have been allotted alternative shops, the respondent's authority are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of alternative shop in accordance with law and on its merits as expeditiously as possibte." Mr. M.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that thereafter, two representations were filed and by a communication dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure-PI) respondent No.5 asked for showing income of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his income certificate (Annexure-P-12) on 19.11.10, but no decision has been taken till date. His submissions is that since no fix time limit was prescribed by this Court in earlier order, therefore, respondent No.5 has not decided the application till date. He prays for a direction to respondent No.5 to decide the applications/representations filed by the petitioner at an early date. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the contents of the earlier order dated 14th of September, 2011, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent No.5 shall disposed of the representations filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is finaliy disposed of. ^ No order as to cost. 8d/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge