High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6318/2010dismissed

Gopal Sharan Sharma, v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2018-08-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6318 of 2010 Gopal Sharan Sharma, Aged about 58 years, S/o. Shri R.S. Sharma, Assistant Accounts Officer, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Nagariya Niyojan-avam-Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Municipal Corporation, Through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

3. Municipal Corporation, Through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

None For State :

Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 :

Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :

Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/08/2018

1. The challenge in the present writ petition was to the notice (Annexure P/1) dated 05.10.2010, whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the official accommodation i.e. Quarter No. F-02 allotted to him and also to pay the monthly rent at the market rate of Rs.15,900/- for occupation of the same beyond the permitted limits.

2. The said writ petition was filed in the year 2010. The said order was issued in the light of the services of the petitioner being transferred from Korba to Bilaspur.

3. Meanwhile, the respondents have filed their return and have enclosed Annexure R/1 whereby the impugned order in the present writ petition

dated 05.10.2010 has been modified to the extent that the amount of market rent payable has been reduced from Rs.15,900/- to Rs.6,375/-.

4. Perusal of the record would also show that the petitioner also has in between retired from service and as such the grievance of the petitioner by now must have been redressed that is the reason perhaps, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Given the aforesaid development, which has transpired subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, there does not appear to be any further adjudication required in the present dispute.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed, reserving the right of the petitioner for raising dispute, in case if any grievance still survives. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved