In this oral order, the High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought directions to consider a representation by the CISF. The Court observed that a committee had been constituted and the matter forwarded, finding nothing survived for adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S No. 62' [2011
Cyp
/ Ratneshwar Thakur, CISF No. 054450013,
s/o Late Amir Thakur, Aged about 51 years.
r/o — c/o NTPC — CISF, PO - Ujjawal Nagar,
Seepat 495555, District — Bilaspur (CG)
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF —
" " M .
Ranchi Road, Pratap Colony, ‘.‘.V,.~..« w. ..............
\A/A)
PO — Marar, Hazaribagh, W”
District — Hagaribagh (JHARKHAND) Petitioner
Versus
i1. Central industriai Security Force, Through its Director-Generai, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Respondent No.1 Commandant,
Central Industriai Security Force, KSTPP, Korba, District— Korba (CG) Deputy Commandant, NTPC— CISF Unit, Seepat, District— Bilaspur (CG)
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) NO.624 OF 2011
PETITIONER
Ratneshwar Thakur
Versus
RESPONDENTS
Central lndustrial Security Force &
Others
(WritPetitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish Kr Agnihotri, J.
we
Present :-
Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. - 'SoIicitOr Ms Fouzia Mirza, Assistant General with Shri R.S. Baghel, standing counsel for the respondents/CISF.
I
ORDER {ORAL} (Passedonthis2" day of February, 201 1)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
consider and decide the representation dated 4—8-2010, which was fon/varded on 7-8-2010 (Annexure — P/6) for consideratign.
- A the very outset, Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Seamed Assistant’Solicitor General appearing with Shri R.S. Baghel, learned standing counsel for the respondents/CISF, submits that the Committee'has already been constituted to consider the representations like the present one. The case ofthe petitioner has already been forwarded for consideration. Accordingly, the Committee shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with Iaw ' and on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible. 4. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothingsurvives in this petition for adjudication.
ACcordingIy, the writ petition is disposed of.
WW
Sd/—'
Gowri
i Satish K. Agnihotri
Judge
1 issue framed by the court
whether the petition for directions to consider a representation requires adjudication
Ratneshwar Thakur
Central Industrial Security Force
Satish Kr Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
