W.P. ISl N0 v. Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. ISl N0. £50^^ 72013 PETITIONER Gyanlata Khare, vn.ie of Shri Arvind 'Khare, agedabout 40 years, resident of Baikunthpur Bhattipara, Police Station Baikunthput, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Civil and Revenue District Koriya, Chhattisgarh VERSUS •^. RESPONDENTS 1 .^-' State of Chhatdsgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Urbaii Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya /
Raipur, Chhattisgarh State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary The Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Panchayat, ^^ 1 '^^ Raipur, Chhattisgarh
The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh
The Disto-ict Education OfBcer, Dista-ict Koriya, Chhattisgarh '
Smt. Suman Gupta, Upper Division Teacher, Middle School Sagarpur, Block Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION )F INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANbAMUS, PRdHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER 7^ef--w\<y^,wStt'i<c,'M<ftmy. .f ^®N^^ -^20. Wtlc'IT *<4tcb ^ an^?r t»ag; i^af^^u) •si^i.^TfiFflg; wit3ii??r *iii<ti <::hi<)[<'!<4ll 4l^<"^ ^ "^^ ^T srf^r sn^f <^j-^.|< SB: Hon'bleSHriManindra Moh&n Shrivastava, J. 19-07-2013 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, cbuns^l fcr the petitioner. Shri AjrfSingh, Panel Lawy^r for the State. l-1eard: ' , , .. At the outset, leamed eoui|iset for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 05-07-2013 ventilating various grievance agjainst (Annexure P-1) as also againsts^nding the petitionertoNagarPalika the petitioneF has preferijed representation. Learned cQunsel School, forthe petitioneralso submits tha jthe petitioner would be-satisfied, if a direction is issued to the respond ^nt No.4 to look into the grievance of the petitionerand take appropriatejdecision thereon. Considering the submissioiti made above, it isdirected that the prefer representation aforessid petitioner would No.4 within a period of two weeks grievances before the responden| .4 shall look into the matter and take from today and the respondent N() appropriate decision on the petiti{>ner's representation within a peribd of six weeks from the date of r^ceipt of representation along with a raisiag copy of this order. Needless to emphasize, f grievance of the petitioner is not redressed, he would be at liberty t(3 revive the petition, With the aforesaid obsen^ation/direction, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge -^ Tumane l' ""^.iraslICTr.i - l.s'i;-—l*2'>i2^1.5h.B»B. _t,_
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.