v^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No...?..u..^..<../2008 PBTITIONER 4 .^^"v <"3.\A Jfw. '°1.\. RESPONDENTS. .0^"^' •<^pt"^^ s^ / Rajendra Kumar Sanva, S/o Late Shri MaKhanlal Sarwa, aged about 45 years, Occupation-Advocate, R/o. Vilalge and post Kareli Choti, Tahsil Magarlod Dist. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS g^,--1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary/Additional Secretaiy Law 85 Legislative Affairs Deportment D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /2. The Court Superintendent Office of District 85 Sessions Judge, District Court Dhamatari Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.) ^^/3. Indramani Parmar S/o. Dhruv Narayn Parmar, aged about 45 years, R/o. Kareli Chowk, Megha Road, Ward No. 15, Post and Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamatari (C.G.) <S . /4. Hemant Kumar Sahu, S/o. Bishat Ram Sahu, aged about 41 years, R/o. Sanjay Nagar, Ward No.l Post and Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamatari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION JJNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA FQR ^SSUANCE OF WRIT IN 1TATURE OF CEERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION_AND OTHER SUITABLE WR1T OR WRITS, DIRECTION__QR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR QRDERES: '-'''?''l. .>^'' •'.!- ~SSSh.. S; '•^ w't1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.5635 OF 2008 PETITIONER Rajendra Kumar Sarwa Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri Vishnu Koshta, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 18th day ofJune,2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that non-consideration of the representation dated 22-8-2008 (Annexure - P/6) necessitated filing of this petition, as it is well settled principle of law that the representation may be decided within a reasonable time preferably within a period of six months (See S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ). 2. At this stage, Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State, submits that it is true that the representation could not be considered and decided within a reasonable time; however, the same shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. In view of the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the State, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is not necessary to adjudicate upon the dispute, however, liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to file fresh petition, if he fails in the representation. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed ofwith the aforesaid liberty. Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge