y I g/EZA gingm Beneh IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIseARH AT BILASPvR WRIT PETITION (s) No. @iR OF 2009 PETITIONER k Rujendm Kumar' Verma, aged 38 years, Occupa’rion—Service, R/O I. 'Dr. Vijay Kumar Verma, 5/0 Chandrashekhar Nagar, Sunder /. Nagar‘ ward, Raipur (6.6) Vs flfs'fa‘re of ChhaTfisgarh, Through The SecreTar‘y, DepurTmen’r of AgriculTur'al Man’rralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur‘. /2<'Dr‘. I.P Singh Vefr'inar'y Assistan’r Surgeon, Ve‘rrinary Hospi‘fal, Bilaigarh, Dislricf Raipur (6.6). RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA z @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5275 of2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotrh J. Freset: n Shri Raj eev Shrivastava, Advocate with Shri Siddharth Rathod, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 16 day of September, 2009) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions: submits that the petitioner does not want to contest this petition on merits at this stage. However, the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation and the respondent-State may be directed to consider and decide the said representation, as early as possible. Shri Bhaduri; learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt ofthe representation. 3. In the meantime, the State/respondent No. 1 may consider the case of the person who has been transferred in place of the petitioner and he may also be given an opportunity to put forward his case, before considering and passing any order on the representation ofthe petitioner. 3.. t 4. In View of the above, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 1 f . Sd/- I } f Satish K. Agnihotri}, . 7 J Judge ‘ PETITIONER Dr. Vijay Kumar Verma. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & another.