State Of Chhattisgarh And ANR. v. Kamala Tiwari
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
j'urs s &XSs""i!
BYNOTiFiC"^.
••! N0. S3SO/D^2870/XXI:
/05'ASSP'EC'FIEQ iN SCHEDULE D[&II^rH£'COURT"FEESACT 1870 S;"- ? W^T' L:
IN_THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.1 M.C.C.No. -35/f/2013 fARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 01.02.2013 PASSED BY DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.(S) No. 4552/2005) APPLICANTS:
1.
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipyr, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, Raipur (C.G.) The Principal, Kirodiraal Govemment Arts 8s Science College, Raigarh (C.G.)
Versus
J»-/l-^ ^A-sFiwari; «ft>^)ifiaT^aM S/o. T.L. Tiwari, Aged about 59 years, Near Chandni Chowk Choubey Gali, Palace Road, District-Raigarh (C.G.) RES'PONDENT:
PETtTIONER APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DECIDING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER t DATED 01.02.2013 PASSED IN W.P.(S) No._A552/201_3.
.4- •XS.
rl ^^ '^v XI-HC-78 -3^? ^IRrRTq, ^^tWT.S, -NRTOiy 1.^.L-... .:J£M!A, !T' 200 an^T T--R7 (•^jigq^q) •^rafep!^ ~sr^ ^ 'fe^ -ffsr^n.
^ 3Tf?iK <¥T^ si^iqnfN^ | ,WI S^S 3CTW SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Shrivastava, J.
25.11.2013 Smt. UNS Deo, Govt. Advjocate for the State/applicants. Heard on prayer for exteijision of time in deciding the case ofthe petitioner.
Learned counsel for the ptate submits that though an order was passed by this Court on 1.2.2013 in;W.P(S) No.4552/05 directing the applicants to comply with the djrection of the Court within a period of 3 months, for reasons stated in the application, some more time may be gpanted.
j .
4-have gone through the jsontents of the application. In para-2 of the application all that has bejen stated is that the matter has been forwarded to the Secretary anc| the same would be decided by taking into consideration the entire as^ect of the matter. There is no averment of the Secretary of the Departntent as to why the representation of the petitioner could not be decided t II date.
Therefore, the applicaticjn is misconceived and the same \s^ dismissed.
^^ ^'.s^a< ^€1 ^ss •ss^^^- »»'