$§M§£E EE§§€§§ IN THE HILGI-I COURT OF CHHATTIGARH LS AT BILASPUR w P kéglg ?j2?2009s B (Ansmg out ofWP (C) P RNo 2694/07) / Lakhan lal S/o Ramasrey (Ex Kotwar of village Hardi) Aged about — 58 years R/o : Village‘HardiJahsil Lormi , Distt— Bilasp’ur (C. G.) PETITIONER ‘QV = VERSUS ’ State of Chattisgarh ‘ Through: Revenue Secretary, D.K.S. ,'Bhawa'n , Raipur (C.G.) he Collector Bilaspur Distt.- B1laspur (C G ) he Sub D1v10nal Ofiicr, evenue Lorml, Dlsst Bilaspur (C. G.) x ahsildar , Lormi istt.- Bilaspur (CLG) Sanat Kumar o Present Kotwaaarof Village Hardik Di'stt:- Bilasur (C.G.) RESPONDENT ‘ - S > PETITION UNDER ARTILCLE 227 OF THE CONSTILTUTION NDIA FORILSSUANCE OF AN APPROPRITE ORDER IN NATURE OF Cé Mala / h T T R T D p T OF I WRIT PETITION (227) NO;‘7227 of 2009 PETITIONER : ' Laan kh Ll. a VEUS RS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. RESPOETS NDN WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA hri B.K.Chakrabarty, Advocate for the petition. S er Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the $tate/respondents 1 to 4. ORDER ORAL ( y ) Passed on 11 da of December, 2009 Present: I y 4; B this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. Tahsildar Lormi, to decide his case in View of the direction given by the respondent No. 3, Sub Divisional \Officer,.Lormi, vide order date 28.10.1996 (Annexure P/2. ) earned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wa L s the Kotwar of village Hardi, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur. On account ome observations made by the Sessions Judge in Special Criminal Case o. 248/1992, regarding the character of the petitioner, the petitioner wa N s terminated hom service vide order dated 311.7.96V(Annexure P/l) by the n .respondent No. 4. Shri Chakrabarty further submits that against the sai \ worder‘ dated 31.7.1996, the petitioner preferred an appeal‘.before th r f L espondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3, after’ConSidering the grieVances o t in he petitioner from all angles and after being satisfied with the contento raised by the petitioner, vide order dated 28.10.1996 (Annexure P/2) set side the order passed by the respondnt 'No. 4 and remanded back the matter to the respondent No. 4 to consider afresh and to pass appropriate rders in accordance with law. Shri Chakrabarty next sumits that in spit to b e HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AR AT BILASPUR SB: Hon’ble' Shri Satish KIAgnihotrLJ. d ‘ s r d e a e W of specific directions given by the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 4 x has not taken any initiative to decide the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has also submitted a representation before the Collector on 20.10.2005 and requested for his reinstatement. y I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that after the order passed by the respondent No. 3, the petitloner has never made any application or any prayer before the respondent No 4 for early disposal of his case Without making any prayer he has approached this Court directly. Even, in the representation made before the Collector also, the petitioner has not made any prayer for issuance of direction to the respondent N0. 4 for early decision on the case f the petitioner by the respondent No. 4. Thus, it is not possible to issuea rit as sought for by the petitioner in this sketchy petition without having relevant and sufficient materials. or the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage. However, in the nterest of‘ justice, it is expected ,that the respondent authorities may ' consider and decide the pending case/representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law; on its own merits and in its perspective. ‘ i ’ Satish K. Agnihotr Judge o w - F i