rAe ^' Singia 3e"ch IN THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. B 4- OF 2001 PETITIONER ^ ^^ A^-^y /yy Kanhaiya Lal Patel, S/o Gajanan Prasad Patel, Aged about 51 years Occupation - Teacher, R/o Boys Primary School Aurabhata Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) t^^. /'^ ^^^ESPONDENTS /...> ". ^ :.-..^A-^ ^r^?%. ^••''v ','• VERSUS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary Education Department D.K.S. Building Raipur (C.G.) / 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh (C.G.) . ^ 3. The Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Principal, Middle School, Aurabhata Tahsil 8& Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 'l^l'l^^ II v:^ WRIT PETITION U/S 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF /^ ^ INDIA ^T 2^) ^il^l^?^^ WTSSNWRW ^ •3%r^rpn^n, "^WT^, I^TRI^; ^I^^TWJW"" :" ?' ""^, 200 ^i^ <^t3^?) ^^iW^ft^^ni^T Anne^lure 28/01/2005 Smt Indira Tripafhi, Shri Akhil Agrawal, P. L. ] HeardonI.A. No. 214/2(| The' instatrt petttioii has| ground tliat he had challengec] by ffliag a Writ Petition No. 2^ this Court vide order dated 3 respondents to decide the petitiouer wifhui six weeks. Leamed counsel for tlie th.e representation vide not been decided by the respcj by tliis Court. The clocument <\ representation of the petitionj counsel for the petitiouer furi weeks by which the represen^ over, Even tlien tliey have not| as such a violation offheCouj respondents should be f\ represeutatk^n of fhe petitbner I have heard the leamed The order of Annexure specific aiid clear aiid if corapliance of the above orde| corliisel ^R^tN ^FI^f ^f fe^ ^P^R ^T -^lRfH ^T?^T for the petitioner. Ebrfhe State, )05 for iirgenthearing, Itis allowed, been filed by the petitk>ner on the fhe traiisfer order of Annexure P-1 ?60/2004 which was disposed ofby 0/08/2004 withadirection to tlie representation submitted by fhe t)etitioner siibtaits fhat he subm.itted P-4 aiid P-7 but tiie saoie has jndents despite categorical directiou |>fAnnexure P-5 establishes fliat the br is unider consideration. Leamed Rier submits that ffae period of six |ation was to be decided is Edready jdecided tlie representation aiid it is (l?s order. Howeyer, it is prayecl th.at lirtlier directed to decide the 1 which is pendiiig. |counsel for fhe petitioner. P--2 passed by tius Court is veiy petitioner is aggrieved by non ^ he is at libei1:)T to BIOVC suitable tlte Gi; PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. ^^ ^? 'R^i^b ^?r^i?^r^Rt^ &-. .-: ^< WN^T 'l^iT^ -S^S ^iiqM<q, ^NtT^, toRiy ^........U:^^...^C^ ^QQ ~^i^?tq^^ (^I^^) Wi?^C ^ft^ ^ii^II -2.— application iinder fhe law aiidj is for direction to the respond( the petitioner is not niaiataiQ^J disniissed. ConsequenUy, I.A. No. ^OTfa^ 'Wf^ °^'te^t ^R$K ^^fN^^T second petition of siaiilar reUef tliat ;nts to consider the representation of able aiid accordiagly, the petition is 14/2005 staads disposed of Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^^ ¥ f Gi: T'RJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000.