IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ynLnEJSj No.4_Q§7 of 2001 Chain Lal Kamde, S/o. Shri Chunni Lal Kamde. aged About 58 years. Presentiy posted as D.E. Telecom. Optical Fibre Cable, Microwave Building. Raipur Naka, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Petitigner Versus Rgspondents 1. Union of India through the (a) Secretary. Ministry of Communications 8: Information Technology, Department of Telecom Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi. The Under secretary, Union Pubiic Service Commission, (Sangh Lok Seva Ayog), Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. Bharat Sanchar Nigarm Ltd. Telecom Projects West (MR) through the Chief General Manager Maintenance, Westem Telecorn Region, 11th Floor, Telephone House, V.S. Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai. Deputy General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telecom Projects West (M.P.) G.T.B. Complex, A—Block, 1st Floor, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) 4. Deputy General Manager (MTCE) Western Telecom. Region, 3rd Floor, Telecom Building, Fafadih, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (b) (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) Sinqle Bench' Hon'ble Justice Shri Satish K. Aqnihotri Present : Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Afroj Khan, counsel for the petitioner. Miss Sharmila Shighai, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri RM, Solapurkar, Advocate for the respondents No.2, 3 & 4. ORDER (Passed on 18‘“ July, 2007) ‘ Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner suhmits that the petitioner has tiled a Review Petitioner dated 13.01.2006 against the order dated 05.10.2005 (Annexure P-3). This Review Petition is pending for consideration before the respondent No.1 (a). 2. Shri RM, Soiapurkar. counsel appearing for the respondents No.2. 3 & 4 submits that this petition is not maintainable in view of the pendency of the Review Petition before the Govemment of India. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since more than eighteen months have passed, no steps have been taken by the respondent No.1 (a) to consider and decide the Review Petition med by the petitioner, a direction be issued to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, on its own merit, expeditiously. L 4. ln view of the above, the respondent No.1 (a) is directed to consider'and decide the Review Petition dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure P-4), pending before him within a period of eight weeks, in accordance with law, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. _.s—s=rr—" “ Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge lndu