ggfO ’ - CIVIL COIJTErvapr PETITION N0. $ OP 2m ' l g. Mia 3&Emh k PETITION UNDEri MILCLL 215 OP CONbTi YUTLON Or INDJ.“ § s a PJE THE PDNBLE MGH COURT OP CHI[Al 1J.S(JARH AF BLLH§PUR PETITIONEB. :- J.P. Singh, 3/0 Late 3.13. Singh,aged‘ n. (V about 51 years, Dy. iv’xanagerw‘iarke‘bing) I.B.P. Co. Ltd” VinobaNagar, Police V E l Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur{ Chhattisgarh) S S J\. RE SPONDENTX :- P.R. Nambiar, Executive Direc£or(SP & E) commp'romERx I.B.P. Co. Lid., “IBP House“, 34—A u- Nirmal Chand Street, Kolkata (W.B§). XC22 I~H— / 1§—3-2084— Shri H.B4 Agrawal, com Heard, The petitionsr has f1led Constitution of India with fh ucompliéd with this Comt’s or contempt notice be issued agz While dispOSing , of t' 28-11—2003 this Court pas aJlowed to make a detailed ”the respondent was c‘drect submitted bv the petitioner Wlth a reasoned order representaton to the respor dated 26—12-200o the repres‘ after considem'ng' the some. A perusal of the order ( the order of Hon’ble High 28-11—2003 in the WP. No.3553j2003 your case has once again considered by the undersigned for its merits. While examining it is urgently required for administrative \ seen that your Services are exigency at the company’s S‘ all the asyects énd taking need at Kudl‘emukh, it is 1se1 forthe petitioner. this petition under Article 215 of the e prayer that the respondent has not der dated 28—1 1-2003 and, theiefore, iinst respondent. 1e writ oetition No.3553i2003 on :ed an 01d61 that the pednoner 1s epresentation to the respondent and ed to cons1det the representation and decide the same Within 3O days ’Thereaf‘ter, the petitioner made a dent and vide order (Annegtu‘e—Pf5) :ntation of the petitioner was rejected Annexure-‘P/ 5) reveals that “in View of Sonrt, Chhattisgarh, Bilas‘pur dated . v13 unit at Kudremukh. Considering :nto consideration the administrative once again informed ,that for gig/M 1 7.“ A XLHC-22 mwz§ww < 37mm aforesaid reasons your mprwentation Liamd 8.12.2603 is hereby regrett€d.” Lsalned counsel for petitioner is working as a Me under the supervision of N61 f Vtrwsferred in the Claemical haS net been considered by 1h I: ‘ A perusal of the ordi Considexing‘ the representatio: been passed: therefore, I am been committed by the respo The petition is without 1 In View of this order, / disposed of. the petitioner submitted that: the rketing Oiiicer and takmg treatment gin—physician Whereas, he has been Engineemg Brarxch and this aspect e respondent: :1‘ Annexure—P/S reveals that after 1 made by the petitioner, order has 9f the opinion that no contempt ha ent, V , basis and the same is dismissed. Nos.639/2004 ea 640/2004 stand V Sd/— L.C.BHADO Judge s n 1.‘ O