Rajshri vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Listed On:
16 Oct 2014
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
^Q
IN THE HIGH COURT^F CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S'S'^- WRIT PETITION (S) N0. / 2(114 PETITIONER 1. Rajshri, D/o Late Mehtab Singh
15-».- -Vs-
-'^. •RESPONDENTS: <sup>1</sup>
'<-..
.-^ years, R/o District Chhindwara (M.P.) ^' i,^. V^Gond, Aged aj3"6ut 21 <sup>y</sup> -J^v Rohnakala, Chhindwara, ^<yf^^\ "•—"-"—' ^..—.^..--, ^y5"^4^
State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur(C.G.)
- Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2^6 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION,ORDER/ORDERS DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS.
3
٠r٢
$13$
उच्च न्यायालय, छत्तीसगढ़, बिलासपुर
मामला क्रमांक, WPS NO. 55</></>/. सन् 20 $K$
आदेश पत्रक ( पूर्वानुबद्ध )
| आदेश का दिनांक<br>तथा आदेश क्रमांक | हस्ताक्षर सहित आदेश | कार्यालयीन मामलों में डिप्टी रजिस्ट्रार<br>के अंतिम आदेश |
|---|---|---|
| <u>S.B: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL</u> | ||
| es oi | 16.10.2014: | |
| Shri Sachin Tamrakar, counsel for the petitioner.<br>State. | Shri R.K. Gupta, Deputy Advocate General for the | |
| Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's father<br>- Shri Mehtab Singh died in harness on 24.05.2003 and after | ||
| obtaining succession certificate, she made an application on | ||
| 28.05.2013 (Annexure P-7) for compassionate appointment | ||
| before the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon but till this | ||
| date no decision has been taken by respondent No. 2. | ||
| Be that as it may, the respondent No. 2 is directed to | ||
| take decision on the said application (Annexure P-7) filed by | ||
| the petitioner within a period of three months from today in | ||
| accordance with law on its own merits. | ||
| It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any | ||
| he | opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would | |
| be at liberty to decide the representation in accordance with law! |
Sanjay K. Agrawal