HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W. P (Cl No. 381 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Kusum Tiwari, Wife of Shri B.N. Tiwari, aged about 72 years, R/o Nirala Nagar, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G). Vs. 1 Senior Divisional Manager, South Eastern Central Raiwaly, Bilaspur (C.G). 2 Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G). 3 Union of India, through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Government oflndia, New Delhi (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA Appearance: Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. Varun Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali, for the respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (27.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Petitioner Kusun Tiwari has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs : "10. RELIEFS SOUGHT : The petitioner craves the indulgence of the Hon'ble Court: ' i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. W.PrS)No.381./2010 ^7 .V ii. To kindly direct the respondent authority to allot the alternate plot to the petitioner as done in case of other similarly situated persons. iii. To kindly direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation ofthe petitioner at the earliest. iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner." The petitioner, thus, in substance is praying for allotment of an alternative plot and also for a direction to decide her representation filed for the said purpose. The copy of the representation has been filed as Annexure P-3. It appears that the petitioner was allotted Shop No. PBS 36 in the Railway Circulation Area and she was running the shop as per license No. W(L) 372/1/PBS/36. According to the petitioner she was dispossessed by the railway authorities and two writ petitions being W.P.No.3169 & 3170 both of 1997 were filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. These writ petitions have been finally disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 27.7.2009. It has been observed in the last paragraph of the order that "if at all the petitioner feels that she has some remedy under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, she may seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law by filing appropriate proceeding". Mr. Pali submits that the petitioner was forcibly evicted from the railway zone in the year 2001. He further submits that many other shop keepers were also dispossessed. His submission is that other shop keepers have already been allotted alternative plots for their business but the case of the petitioner has been ^p illegally discriminated by the respondent authorities. He also ''-J'' W.P('S)No.381./2010 ^- submits that raising all grievances, after dismissal of the writ petitions on 27.7.2009, the petitioner has filed her representation on 01.09.2009 Annexure P-3 but the same has not been disposed of by the railway authorities till date, therefore, this writ petition has been filed. He submits that presently this petition may be disposed ofwith a direction to the railway authorities to dispose of the said representation within the time frame prescribed by this Court so that the matter may come to an end. His further submission is that the petitioner may also be granted liberty to visit this Court once again if she would feel dissatisfied with the decision taken by the railway authorities. This limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority of the Railways that if the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) has not been decided so far, the same shall be disposed of as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order along-with copy of the writ petition. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision taken by the railway authorities, she would be at liberty to visit this Court once again. With the aforesaid observrations/direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed of at the motion stage itself. No order as to costs, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao