^^,-,v\ \./ 0^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER APPLICANT RESPONDENTS ^TO^'-APPLICANT WRIT PETITION (ll^ No. 2407 of2008 Zila Salikari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Through: The Chief Exeartive Officer, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar(C.G.) VERSUS : 1) The Registrar- Co-operative Societies, Cliliattisgarh, Raipiir (C.G.) 2) The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur (C.G.) 3) The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar. 4) Ram Ashish Sm^i; Retired Lamps Maaager. Kondagaoii, at present R/o Near Telephone Exchange, Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETmON U/A 227 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agirihotri, J. Present: Shri Prafull Bharat Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate Geiieral forthe State/ respondent No. 1 to 3. .^ ORALORDER (Passed on 28U1 day of April, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appeai'mg for the p^titioner-Bank submits that the respondent No. 4 was terminated from service after proper enquiry on 19.04.2005. The respondent No. 3, fhereafter qyashed the temimation order m an appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 on 18.01.2007 (Amiexure P/l). Beiiig aggrieved, the petitioner-Bank preferred aii appeal before the Joint Registrar- Cooperative Societies, alongwith an application for stay offhe order dated 18.01,2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar. Tlie Joint Registrar dlsmissed the application for staying the order dated 18.01.2007, on 16.05.2007 (Aimexure P/2). The petitioner. thereafter preferred a revision which was also dismissed on 25.02.2008 (Annexure P/3) on the ground of non-maintamability. Thas, tliis petition. 2, Shri Bharat, leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that after dismissal ofthe application fbr stay, the Joint Registrar, respondent No. 2 is not deciding the appeal 'whidi was flled m the moiith of Febniary 2007. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respoadent No. 2 to consider and decide the appeal expeditioiisly. 3. In nomial course, this Court should not entertam such petition seeking a direction to the quasi-judidal authority for disposal ofappeal. However, m fhe facts situation ofthe case, the petitioner is at liberty to make aa application befbre the Joint Regi^trar, Cooperative Soeieties. to consider and decide the appeal expeditiously. 4. In view ofthe foregomg observrations, fhis petitioii stands disposed of Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Aimt