c^ \-^^_ ^ In the Hon'ble HiciCourtof Chhattishaarh at Bilaspur(C.G.) W.P.(S)No. ^O 2010 Petitioner ^\3^^ .......-^^pt^i0.-" .^^^' ^^:;.. ^"" Respondents I.L.Yadav, aged;> 52 years Son of Shri G.R.Yadava, Chief Sanitary Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1 . 1. State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, Nagariya Prashashan, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) ^ 2. Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Through the Comissioner. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Mandamus of wriVDirection or any other appropriate writ. Petitioner, respectfully furnishes the particulars of writ petition as under:- ^•^^d^^^^S^S^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSG.^R.H AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CS) No. 60 of2010 PETITIONER : I.L.Yadav. VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : State Govermiient ofChliattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON Ij'NDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLTION OF INDL4 SB: Hon'ble S!m Satish K.Agiuliotr^ J, Present: Slm Sonikant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri N.N.Roy,.Panel Lav^yer forthe State/respondent No. 1. Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocate for the resposident No. 2. ORALORDER (Passed on 1 ltil day of March, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is working as Chief Sanitary Inspector at Muiiicipal Coi'poratioii, Bhilai, has been found fit for promotion. Accordingly, a letter dated 02.09.2003 (.^miexure P/l) was written by the Cotmiiissioner, Municipal Coiporation, Bhilai to the Seci'etaty, Govermiiesit of Chhattisgarh, Urban Administration & Developmeiit Department. However, 110 order has bee passed oiithe said coiiiinimication. 2. Be that as it may, in nomial course, no writ can be issued directmg the autliorities to pass an order on a coniiiiunication sent by aiiothcr authority. However, having regard to tlie facts situation of the case wherein reconimeiidation has been made by the Municipal Coiporation to the Secreta^ there seems to be no reason why the Secretaiy should not pass any order in accordasice with law. The matter seems to be pending before the Secretaiy for more than six years. No decision has been taken on the said coniiBumcation. 3. Accordingly, it is dii'ected that appropriate orders may be passed by the Secretaiy, Urbasi Admmistration & Development Department 011 the recosimiendation made by the Comniissioiier, Municipal Corporation, Bliilai, in accordance with law on its own perspective, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy ofthis order. 4. With the aforesaid obsei^ation and direction, this writ petitioii is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge