Rajendra Prasad v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2522 of 2009

1. Rajendra Prasad S/o Hemraj Ram, aged about 40 years, R/o Qtr. No. RC 18/4, Deviganj Road, In Front Of Dhuadhar Park, Ambikapur Surguja Distt. Surguja (Cg) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

2. The Collector, Ambikapur, Surguja Distt. Surguja (Cg)

3. Sushma Rawat, Asstt. Grade-III, Office Asstt., Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Ambnikapur, Distt. Surguja (Cg)

4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Cg) ---- Respondents For Petitioner.

- Shri Manoj Paranjape, Advocate.

For Respondents 1, 2 & 4 - Shri Adil Minhaj, Panel Lawyer.

For Respondent No.3.

- None Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order On Board 29/07/2015 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order of Collector, the petitioner had preferred representation before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, and his representation was allowed by the Commissioner. He further submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already vacated the Govt. quarter and therefore at this stage the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file suitable application before the Collector for making fresh allotment of the quarter. He also submits that the Collector may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously without

being influenced by previous orders passed by him and the Commissioner.

2.

State counsel has no objection so far as withdrawal of the petition is concerned. He, however, submits that in case, under the law, the petitioner is entitled for allotment of Govt. quarter, his application would be considered and appropriate order would be passed.

3.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. Needless to state that if the petitioner files any application before the competent authority, the same may be dealt in accordance with law.

4.

It is made clear that nothing has been observed on merit of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to act in accordance with law.

Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) JUDGE Vijay