Virendra Kumar Meshram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 21 of 2018

1. Virendra Kumar Meshram Son Of Rajan Singh, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ambaghar Chowki, Behind Van Upaj Jach Naka, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

2. Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Son Of Hirdey Ram Yadav, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Mirchey, Post Chilhati, Tehsil Ambaghar Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

3. Purshottam Kumar Dewangan, Son Of Heeralal Dewangan, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Salhejalhal, Post Dangarh, Tehsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

4. Galeshwar Giri Gosai, Son Of Uttam Giri Gosai, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Murpaar, Tehsil Ambaghar Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

5. Kamal Kant Sahu, Son Of Ishwar Singh Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Gupsal, Post Bandhabazar, Tehsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director, Health Services, Directorate Of Health Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

4. Block Medical Officer, Block Ambaghar Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

5. Block Medical Officer, Block Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

6. Block Medical Officer, Block Maanpur Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board 09/01/18 1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have made an application under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Rajya Upcharyagrah Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapnaye Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2013 (henceforth 'Adhiniyam, 2013') for registration but the same has not been considered and decided till date and, therefore, they may be permitted to file fresh application for registration and the same may be directed to be decided expeditiously.

2.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the application filed by the petitioners for registration under Adhiniyam, 2013 has been decided.

3.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4.

Be that as it may, the petitioners are at liberty to file fresh application for registration under the Adhiniyam, 2013 and, in turn, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

5.

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

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka