Tikam Prasad Nayak v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2851 of 2017 Tikam Prasad Nayak S/o Late Shri Manohar Prasad Nayak, Aged about 45 years, R/o Panch Ward No. 03, Gram Panchayat Rakshapali, Block Kharsiya, Police Station Bhupdevpur Tahasil Mb. 9685854327 ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector, Raigarh, Collectorate Office Raigarh, Tahasil and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
3. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Raigarh, Block Development Office Raigarh, Tahasil and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
4. District Education Officer, Raigarh Tahasil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
5. Block Education Officer, Kharsiya, Block Office Kharsiya Tahasil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
6. Police Station Officer Bhupdevpur, Police Station Bhupdevpur, Tahasil Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
7. G.A.P. Public School, Through The Secretary Gyan Viksit Shikshan Samiti Reg. No. 3674, R/o Kirodimal Nagar Raigarh Tahasil and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. Vijay Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 27/10/17 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 7 is running a school in Raigarh since 2012 without recognition and without affiliation from the competent
authorities. The petitioner has also made several complaints / representations before the respondent authorities in response to which enquiry has also been conducted on respondent No. 7, but till date no action has been taken against the respondent No. 7 by the respondent authorities.
2.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.
Be that as it may, the respondent No. 4- District Education Officer, Raigarh is directed to look into the matter and take decision on the petitioner's representation expeditiously. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an additional representation before the competent authorities for the redressal of his grievances. 4.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka