(L^ ^f^[. ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S)NO. ^3^- / 2010 \^..'"'' ..• 6}..'''' /' (>%•€•• ^'^/ ^w'"' ./t^ ^y IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ; AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER DATED 18.01.2010 PASSED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER (PERSONNEL), N.M.D.C. LTD., HYDRABAD, A.P. AND BETWEEN : PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Anoopdhar Nag, son of Late Shri Gokutnath Nag, aged about 59 years, presently posted as Junior Officer (Personnel), National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Baitadeita Iron Ore Mine, Kirandul Comptex, Kirandut, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 2. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Through the Executive Director (P & A), N.M.D.C. Ltd, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh Senior Manger (Personnel), N.M.D.C. Ltd., •IVtesate Tank, Hydorabad, AncHwa- Pradesh %^M^ ^/^A^bUL Co^^SX ^lAA^^^L-^f^. ^4^Le^^>^, c- ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE AND SUITABLE WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS A' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON fS) No. 392 of2010 PETmONER : AnoopdharNag. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : National Mineral Development Coiporation Ltd. &anotfaer. WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hoii'ble Shri Satish K. Affmhotri. J. Present: Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for tfie petitioner. Sliri P.S.Koshy, Advoeate for the respondents. (MtALOM)ER (Passed on 28ta day of Januafy, 2010) 1. Shri Amrito Das, leamed counsel appearmg petitioner., on insfiraetions, submits that the petitioner does not want to conteat fhis petition on merits at this stage, however, the respondent-auAorities may fee directed to consider fhe fepresentation dated 21.01.2010 (Annexure P/4) pending before the respondent-autihorities sympathetically, as expedtiously as possible. 2. Shri Koshy, leamed counsel appearmg for the respondents submits that the representation offhe petitioner, as aforestated, shatl be consi^red and decided in accordaiice with law, wifhin a period ofsix weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy offhis order. 3. In view ofthe above, according to Shri Das, nothmg survives m this petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. __^_— Arnit Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge