Dev Raj v. B. V. R. Subryamanyam

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 34 of 2017 Dev Raj S/o Shri D.Guriya, Aged About 56 Years R/o Police Training School (P.T.S.), Mana, Police Station Mana, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. B. V. R. Subryamanyam Secretary Department Of Home/ Police, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. A.N. Upadhyay, Director General Of Police (D G P), Police Headquarter, Near Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Pradeep Gupta, Inspector General Of Police (I G P), Office Of Inspector General Of Police (I G P), Shanker Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Rajshri Mishra, Superintendent Of Police (S.P.) Police Training School, Mana, Police Station Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

None appears even in the second round.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 09/02/2017 Heard.

1.

Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. A.G. for the State is present in the Court. 2.

This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 15.09.2016, in which, a direction was issued to the State Government to consider the representation of the petitioner in the matter of promotion.

3.

The contents of the petition shows that after the order was passed by this Court on 15.09.2016, the petitioner submitted representation before the

authorities on 13.10.2016, 14.10.2016 & 15.10.2016 and when the petitioner did not hear anything on his representation, this petition has been filed.

4.

This Court had issued direction for expeditious consideration of petitioner's case. Though no time limit was fixed, depending upon the nature and magnitude, the decision is required to be taken within a reasonable time. Considering that the matter relates to consideration of cases of promotion which may involve requisition of necessary record, ACR, constitution of DPC and consideration of case, I am not inclined to issue notice to the respondent at this stage. It is, however, observed that the effort should be made to complete the exercise as early as possible. After service of the order of the Court, by now, four months have elapsed. In case, no decision is communicated to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of production of copy of the order before the respondent, the petitioner may bring it to the notice of the Court by a fresh petition. 5.

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha