← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/3262/2017disposed off

Satyendra Kaushik v. The Union Of India

2017-12-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3262 of 2017 Satyendra Kaushik S/o Late Chandu Lal Kaushik, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Beltara, Tehsil Bilaspur, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union Of India Through The Principal Secretary Ministry Of Drinking Water & Sanitation, Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) Division, 12th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003

2. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Chief Secretary Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

6. The Sub Engineer, Gram Panchayat Beltara, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

7. Maheswar Kumar Markaam, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Beltara, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

8. Padum Singh Koram, Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Beltara, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Adv. for respective respondent. For State :

Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 06/12/17 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the complaint / representation made by the petitioner before the Sub- Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Bilaspur is pending consideration since 03.05.2016 and has not been considered and decided till date.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

Be that as it may, the Collector / Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's complaint / representation registered strictly in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka