Lt Col Rajendra Yadav (Retd.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 158 of 2021 • Lt Col Rajendra Yadav (Retd.) S/o Shri Bhullar Yadav Aged About 59 Years R/o House No. 528, Platinum Heights, Sector- 18, Block- B Dwarka, New Delhi, District : New Delhi ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Affairs Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2. Inspector General Of Police (Int) Controlling Authority, Private Security Agencies, Old Police HQ, Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg)

3. Directorate General Of Resettlement Through Its Director, West Block-IV, R K Puram, New Delhi- 110066

4. Department Of Ex- Serivcemen Welfare Ministry Of Defense Ministry Of Defense, Through Its Joint Secretary, 99-A South Block, New Delhi- 110011 ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate For Respondent :

Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy. G. A.

For Respondents No. 3 & 4 :

Shri Ramakant Mishra, ASG Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 19.01.2021 Heard.

1. The limited grievance that the petitioner has in the present writ petition is that his application for grant of license under PSARA Act, 2005 is not being processed and decided though it is over two years since the application has been made by the petitioner.

2. Considering the provisions of Section 7 of the aforesaid Act of 2005, which stipulates 60 days time within which his application has to be processed and decided and though since more than two years have already lapsed after

the petitioner has made application and the decision is awaited, this court is of the opinion that the writ petition itself can be disposed of at this juncture directing the respondents No.1&2 to take a decision on the said application of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 30days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is expected that the respondents No.1&2 shall take a decision in accordance with provisions of the aforesaid Act of 2005.

3. The nature of dispute which has been raised clearly disturb the conscious as it would be real disrespect for the army people for which there are certain measures which are made by way of statute to get the privilege.

4. This court has not expressed any opinion so far as eligibility of the petitioner is concerned. The authorities are free to take a decision on the merits of the application that the petitioner has filed.

5. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Jyoti