c.^ INTHEmGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPURfCG) /2011 W. P. (S) No?0^ PETITIONER .f ^'^ REPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. Mohmmad'Ali S/oHasanAli,, agedabout38 years, <^ R/o Talapara, Taiyba Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^- VERSUS State of C.G. ^ Through-Secretary Dept. of Geology andMining D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) Director, Directorate ofGeology & Mining Ring Road No. 1, Raipur (C.G.) Regional Head Direetorate of Geology & Mining ChhattisgarhRegional Office Bilaspur (C.G) ,^ 1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner begs to submit as under- Particulars ofthe Petitioner: As shown in the cause title. 2. Particulars oftheRespondents: As shown in the cause title. 'TSf •*{WM<i, ^TflwiS, f°«rll-M^< ^g..vCJt..:l.^...f^:lrt3?/.;.?... 311^! '^V ('yt^t^) an^i ^T fc;-<i«<i WR ^TT^T 5t>^ictt ^tiBK'atosiit? SB^Hon'ble Shri iVlanindra Mohan Shrivastava. 4. 17-06-2011 Shri S. P. Kale, counsel for the jtetitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawy^r for the State/ respondents on advance copy. Heard. Kamatdka approac^ed This petition has been filed by of inaction on the part of the petitioner's claim for regularization fouf dated 05-03-2008, issued afterthejud^ case of Secretary, State of and Others, (2006) 4SCC 1. Learne^l that earlier the petitioner had (S) No.3769 of 2010, in which, vide has disposed off the petition leavin^ consider and take decision on pet|: accordance with law, laid down by Secrete»y, State of Karnataka anc( Ottiers (supra). When the matter wa^ (C) No. 151 of 2011 was also filed b^j disposed off, obsemng that there is representation nor any time limit has frie The petitioner has plaoed on| promulgated by the State Goverrjment regularization as one thne measure in ^l^f^fN' 'I7TR^ff^ ft^ ^R^K ^wfimaA?! petitioner aggrieved on acoount res|3ondents in not considering the (ided on State Government's Policy jud^ment of the Supreme Court in the and Olhers vs. Uma Oew' (3) counsel for the petitioner submits this Court by filing Writ Petition (jirder dated 26-07-2010, this Court it open for the respondents to poner's representation, strictly in Supreme Court in the case of Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and not decided, a Contempt Petition the petitioner, but the same was tno definite direction to deoide the fixed. the bten record policy dated 05-03-2008 for oonsjdering cases of omplianoe of order passed by the ;-kl 7 XI-HC—78 ~ysf ^wwi, ®fl)y4i6,[s|ffiylj,< -__.VJ..'i:.^.3.c^^.l.. ffi*iit»»"""""""""""""""""7"' Sil^ff'1]^? (•jql^ni^) sn^i qn ft-tH ^TT Sfn^?T sbflt^t Tumane s^n^ ^{sn sv^ .2- Supreme Court in the case of Secretafy, vs. Uma Devi (3) and Othws, fsupraj covered by the aforesaid circular, ait obliged under the law to take d^ci appropriate orders. Prayer of the petitioner appeajrs Accordingly, it is now direcjted consider the claim of the petitioner ^l and in the light of oircular dated 05-|i Supreme Court in the case of Secretet vs. Uma Dev! (3) and Others, fsupjra), expeditiously, imthin a reasonable peri4 With the aforesaid direction, the ^i^f^? ^n?^ ^ fslzt <,?^^.i< ^ •aifim 9:n^?r •y, State ofKamataka and Others , and the case of the petitioner is id therefore, the respondents are ;ision in the matter and pass to be reasonable. that the respondents shal! Iso, strictly in accordance with law P3-2008 and the judgment of the y, State ofKamataka and Others ), and take appropriate deoision id without undue delay. petition is finally disposed off. ^^aMohanS^astav3 Judge •T-- I-