@{Mwl/ >‘ mm ’éEE‘W 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAspUR WRIT pETITION c No. WW3 OF 20m Low PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS m /" 1- WRIT PETITION UNDER. ARTICLE. 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . Bilaspur Jila Samaj Kalyan Sarniti, Regd. No. 9905/81, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, through its Secretaxy~ Jyoti Bhushan Gaur, S/o Late Shri S.C. Gaur, aged about 44 years, Tilak Nagar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. (Appellant) State of C.G., through the u ‘ Secretary Industry and Commerce Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. The Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. The Tahsildar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C. G_. OF, THE EW,W.W am m Wm W mmmzfga WWW WW %mm SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 28-04-201 1 Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for iihe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Heard. The limited grievance raised by t e petitioner through this petition is that because of certain disputes existing in the petitioner’s society amongst various omge bearers,‘ respondent N 3 passed an order seizing the records of the petitioner-society and the itleidocuments of the immovable property have also been seized and ha ded over the same to the another society’Prerna Shiksha Samiti. Learned counsel for the petition proceedings, he moved an application before the respondent No.2-Registrar, releasing the property belonging to the remained undecided, therefore, the petitioner send reminder on 17-01-2008 followed by another reminder on 25-09-2009, but all these applications have not been decided till date, nor seized On 28—03-2011, this Court granted submits that after the aforesaid on 07-08-2007 (Annexure P—3) Firms & Institution, Raipur for petitioner. The said application property have been released. three weeks time to the learned State counsel to seek instructions with regard to the status of the petitioner’s application. Learned State counsel again prays for time to seek instructions. Taking into consideration the nature of grievance raised by the petitioner, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the l H‘K‘; FVFU‘I respondent No.2 to take appropriate de on on the petitioner’s application in the matter of reiease of their prop , in accordance with iaw. The respondent No.2 should decide the a ication within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a cop of this order. With the aforesaid direction, the ition is nally disposed off. p t ti Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane h ’Qfti tat ra c' i e y p l y