IN THE HIGH COURT or JUDI&TURE mTTISGARH AT BILASPUR 'w.P No 91 07 /2eoi 7 Wri sitaxam Gupta; s/o Sri KP Gupta. aged 45 years R/o matterjee Gali; Elev: surkanda. Bilaspur whattisggrh 2.52:1 Ra? Shanna, 8/0 late Ganesh ?zasad Tiwari. Aged aboat 4o years, R/e Kuatidant,Bilaspur. $1hattisgarh J ,-) a? 3.,Sri c L Panaey. s/o Sri K.P_ Papdey, aged 58 years. 3/0 B D Mahant Nagar’; Janj gin. Changchhattisgarh 4.3:1. Kumar $ingh) Gehlot s/o ' Aged about 56 years; R/o Near Krishi Uyaji Mandi Janj gir. Champao chhattisgarh 5.Sri Hamman Prasad Gauraha, s/o Late Eshwar Prasad Gnumha agédr 55 years, R/o 616 Surkanda Bilasmr. Chhattisgarh ’ / 1. State of Chhattisgarh.‘ Thrdts mief Secretary. / $ecratriat e, Raipur, Chha'ttisgarh ’ RE3PONDENTS S V 2. Director General of Police, - Eolice Headquarters; Raipur. Chhattisgarh 3. Addl. Inspector General o Police, Police Headquarter; Raigmr ,mhattisgarh. 4.31:1 N R Lahane. / Sub Inspecter, ’ Police Statian Baghbahar, Through: superintena of Police Dist-t. Jashmr , chhattisgrh.” 5.Sri Shcukhee Das Mahant, sub Inspecter,‘l‘hrough: Supegintdend of Police Distt. Surggja,chhattisgarh 6.3:‘1 Shiv Sh‘ankar Tiwari, / Sub Inspeeter,Threugh: , Superintend of Police,Korea‘. Chhattisgarh ‘ ' neoz “ £ / / 2 £ 3 PETITION UNDER ARTIGJE 226(227 OF TEE CONSTITUTION 6F INDIA *\ wm" @+.‘Hmvl Q* @F r wfXe r W$é§£t ff? ' gav/(‘Q W‘W,mfm Single Bench ‘ v %\{T/74/0 2i‘0 2 00 gtLénamfaxfaza ’ SW WWR' " ‘ ¢ , ‘:’ a§.q§gh3aaan ‘ EH? ‘3‘Q' g WE? A 0861 l .2001 RfnfEa'd It is stated that the b- learned Tribunal is not taking‘ up the Cass for disposal except registration and acce ance of petitions. The leer aw WM Tribunal shall proceed to decide cas‘es eXpeditiously. “M shri P.s.Koshy persis says} J. ‘ that this Court should deci the matter. Since state q 4 &z f ” 7‘ / W ’ ~ J ’ Heard Shri P.S.Koshy. m‘ . learned counsel for the 7P9: -petitioner. 1 fr; Shri Gatnzam Bhaduri. um hr learned Government Advacate in states that this matter should be examined by S£ate Adminisn trative Tribunal. As State Administrative Tribunal is now functioning, in my view, the matter should be decided by the Tribunal. LA :m%wuam(g§awmay W ”mm 311%?! § ' mgkmémnfaa WWtTfg’énmgn $31fwaaf¢3r WW ‘$ 2 $-. ‘ ifwmia 1 1 A&ninisttat1ve Tribunal has jurisdiction over this; c4. 4AA " ’ I matter, I see no reason w 1t should not be examined _ ‘ Q7 tho :by the Tribunal. Let U/W petitioner approach the Tribunal. , Th‘e‘ pe'tition’ls rejec ed. j Sdl- a Chief Justice ss/~ x 1 , I‘ / § l >3 7 ‘ i i 1 f V a L J’JOOG €