High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/3414/2000disposed off

Satyanarayan Agharia v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-02-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP No. 3414 of 2000 Satyanarayan Agharia S/o. Late Kali Ram Agharia, Aged about 41 years, R/o. G-11, SADA Colony, Korba, M.P.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Govt. of M.P., through: its Chief Secretary, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

2. Secretary, Department of Housing & Environment, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

3. Secretary, Department of Urban Housing & Development, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

4. Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Korba, Madhya Pradesh

5. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, Madhya Pradesh

6. R.K. Bhojariya, Sub-Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Korba.

7. Shri M. Sarkar (Manoranjan Sarkar) Sub Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Korba, At present working as Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For State :

Mr. Somkant Verma, P.L.

For respective Respondent(s) :

Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 11/02/2020

1. The counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submits that his grievance would be redressed as of now if the Secretary in the Urban Administration Department i.e. the Department which takes care of the cadre to which the petitioner belongs to take a decision on the representation that the petitioner has made and which has also been forwarded by the then Chief Executive Officer of the Special Area Development Authority, Korba to the Deputy Secretary as early as on 04.06.1997.

2. To the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, the counsel for the respondents do not have any objection.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the Secretary/Deputy Secretary in the Urban Administration Department to consider the representation of the petitioner if any available with them and take a decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

4. In addition, the petitioner would also be at liberty to file a detailed representation supported with all relevant documents and records in support of his claim to the concerned respondents. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion so far as the claim of the petitioner on merits is concerned.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved