SSNRi (^ RSSSjF'sj! BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0. £,(?s'2- OF 2011 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS ^ ^^ Idrish Siddiqui, S/o. Late Shri Rahamatullah Siddiqui, Aged bout 50 years, Presently Posted as Junior Assistant, State Civil Supply Corporation, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supply Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supply Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supply Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supply Corporation, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA ^'Pv..<r^-?"..-<' ./••:-^ ^ -•^^Xv N 3. 4. ^" 5.' r ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT VtlL&SPVS. SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PMTIHKER DIWAKBR W.P.(S).NO. 6182/2011 idrish Siddiqui versus State of C.G. & Others Shri V.K.Pandey, counsel for fhc petitioner. ShriA.V.Shridhar, P.L. forthe State/resp. No.l. Shri Sameer Behar, counsel for resps. 2 to 5 on advance copy. WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOBi QFrajDiA ORDER (17.10.2011) Contention. of Shri Pandey, counsel for ttie petitioner is fliat vide order dated 30.7.2011 (Annexure P/l), recoveiy ofRs. 4,36,051 has been ordered by fhe respondent N0.4 aad agam.st the said order fhe petitioner has already preferred aa appeal before thc resp. No.3 i.e. Chau-maa, Cbliattisgarh State Civfl Supply Corpoxation, Raipzir. He subinits that fhe purpose of fiting fhis petition would be served if direction is issued to the respondent N0.3 to decide fhe pendia^ appeal of the petitioner. On the ofher hand, it has been aiyied by Shri Behar, counsel for resps. 2 to 5 that the petitioner has preferred an appeal recenfly i.e. on 26.8.2011 and wifhout waitxag for siifficient time he has rushed tp this Court aad tberefore the petition is preiaature. Considering fhe facts aud circunistaiices of fhe case aad the Uuuted prayer of fhe petitioner, fhe respondent No.3 is directed to decide the pendiag appeal of fhe petitioner as expeditiously as possible in accordauce with law. It is inade clear that this court has not expressed aay opinion on fhe Bierits of the case aad fhe authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the appeal after considering all tbe aspects of the case, in accordance wifh law. — Sd/- • Pritinker Diwaker '\ - .Judge