Jageshwar Sahu v. Rakesh Sharma

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 502 of 2015

1. Jageshwar Sahu S/o Sarha Sahu, Aged About 52 Years Fruits And Other Daily Need Shop, Sakri, Thana Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Santu Sahu S/o Nanaram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years Auto Parts Shop, Sakri, Thana Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Kavita Pandey W/o Tribhuvan Pandey, Aged About 36 Years Clinic, Sakri, Thana Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Arun Dubey S/o Dhelauram Dubey, Aged About 44 Years Electricity And Tailor Shop, Bus Stand Nagar Panchayat, Sakri, Thana Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Rakesh Sharma The Then Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Smt. Sushma Tiwari Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioners.

: Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 17/11/2015 Heard.

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court was directed, in case in application/representation is made by the petitioners for consideration of their claim

for rehabilitation, the same shall be considered. It is submitted that though representation have been made no decision have been taken till date.

2.

This Court had disposed off the Writ petition filed by the petitioner holding that the action of the respondent can not be held to be illegal. However, it was directed that if their exists any scheme of rehabilitation, the claim of the petitioner, upon representation made, shall be considered. Though, no specific time limit was fixed, more than one year has elapsed. The respondent authority should take decision one way or the other on petitioner's representation and matter can not be kept without decision indefinitely.

3.

Accordingly, this contempt petition at this stage, disposed off with the observation that if no decision is taken by respondent No. 2 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order which is now being passed, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive the petition. The petitioner shall submit a copy of this order before respondent No. 2 within a period of 3 months from today. 4.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge amita