G^- (erz^ 6 BEMCH IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (S) No._ ~!T'?-ffo /2010 PETITIONER ., '.'?;-A'Q./- ^'M^" V^..'•" Sudhir Kumar Banpela S/o. Shri Bannurara Banpela, aged about 42 years, R/o. Mukam-Sakhra Post -Sakhra, Tahsil - Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (l)--State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ."i\ v1^ (2) Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division (Samanya), Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (3) Depot Officer, office of Depot Officer (forest), Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) ElSfc. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^- ,XI|IC-22: an^T^; f^'iwsnisi iib^i«t>m^i T^ '<fwwi. »Ti1«'is,(»«iiyy inwwwirai^...{4^^A (o •V w^i's^'iWirftg chi^lCT<<1l *^l^i ^ ^^ "{f^-^H ^i'apOTsn^r 16-13-2020: Shri S.P.KaIe, counsei for t] Shri Smita Ghai, P.L. for th| Ott Grievance of ttie petitioner though. h.e is entiUed for his reguj Guard, he has been regiilarized Shri Kale subiaits fhat tbj such regulai-ization order on fhe reiaains that the regiiiarization 01 Counsel for fbe petitioner have completed iilt ftie foi-maiitie^ favour of the pentioner and Aere) ruav be permitted to withdraw tij to file a fresh representanon same laav be directed to be deci) expeditiously a.s possible. Counsel for ttie Sfate siibj fhe fact he cazuiot inake aay Goverrunent is wiUing to regularij on fhe post of Forest Guard objection if the petitioaer inak^ authoritv concemed an.d fhe accordaiice with law. tie petitioaer. |ia tlie present petition ts th.at [arization on the post of F'orest fb.e post ofwatclunaa. pentioaer has not fQed any Ipost of Watchmaa but fhe fact \der has already been passsd. Isubmits t.h.at fhe respoadents for passiag necessaiy order in fore at fhis stage tlie petitioner te picsent petiuon wifh Uberty beybre respondent No.2 aad the Bed ia accordauce witb law as jmits that without ascertasaiag stateraent wliether the State ;e Th.e semces of the petitioner or not. However, he has no a ispresentation before fhe same is decided bv it in [iN? •ff<s'i ^ XI-HC-22 w 7=T "ill.iild'M, 'riTTl-y^liB, l»<c]l'My 3TT^T XR^ ^....u.'£.^...')...e^.^s^^ inw-ir sBiiras sii*?r^r R-ti'* sn^r sk^i* 'S^I an^F^^iTWHfeT -2— Accordingly, the petition is ip that in tlie event of any represen^ before resDondent No.2 rsisiii! expected to be decided by th| acconlauce with law as expeditiousty 1]|1S It is luade clear that fiiis Ctiurt opinion on Bierits of the case a4 would be at liberty to decide fhe jre^ stri.cfiv in accordance with law afteil position aad the stateiaent m.ade at|ftie bar. CM*i?d^ii TrR?ff'^1^<<^ •i.rai'^.R ^sifSgn sn^i lisposed of wifh a direction ation filed by tbe petitioner grievaiices, the same is authority concemed in as possible. has not expressed any d the authority concemed resenfation of the petitioner verijyio.g the correct factual Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge -j_.. [tft®7;fei; p