^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P.(C) No.245/2011 Tarachand Nema, Aged about 62 years, S/o Late Rohantal Nema, R/o Bilaigarh Bada, Raipur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1 Versus Ratan Daga, aged about years, S/o Late Jhumerlal Daga, R/o Bharat Kiraya Bhandar, Kankalipara, Ralpur Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 2 Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Commissioner Munlcipal Corporation Matviya Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (C.G. Power Distribution Company Limited) Dangania Raipur (C.G.) through Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (C.G. Power Distribution Company Limited) City Division west, Nayapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. L.C. Dash, Counsel for the petitioner. ORALORDER (17.01.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. The petitioner Is a tenant. He is occupying residentiat accommodation of respondent No.1. The °%. .'••:.":Ealsi.f?"®'c^^s^^s^gi ^ -.'-' .•»/ W.P.(Cl No.245/2011 shyna accommodation is situated in Bilaigarh Bada, Raipur. The petitioner filed an application under Section 38 of the CG. Accommodation Control Act before the Rent Controlllng Authority, Raipur for resumption of water and electricity connections of the disputed premlses. By an order dated 25.08.2010, the Rent Corrtrolling Authority dismissed the aforesaid application filed under Section 38 of the said Act. The petitioner, challenging the order dated 25.08.2010, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the said appeat on 26.10.2010 and remanded the matter to the Rent Controlling Authority with certain directlons. The Appellate Authority, considering the nature of reliefs claimed fixed the date of 02.11.2010 for appearance of the parties before the Rent Controlling Authorlty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after 02.11.2010, no substantive action has been taken by the Rent Controlling Authority and today, the matter is fixed for further hearing before the said authority. Considering the above factual sttuation of the case, 1 do not deem it appropriate to issue notlce to the respondents, because, there does not appear to be inordinate delay in disposal of the matter after the order of remand. The petition, therefore, is disposed of summarily. However, it Is observed that looking to ttie nature of reliefs claimed by the petitioner, the Rent Controlling Authority would try to dispose of the said matter at the eartiest, ——— — Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge