Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Chattisgarh High Court

Satya Prakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh 56 Wps/3315/2018 ... on 1 May, 2018

Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

                                                                                         NAFR


        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                WPS No. 3330 of 2018

        Satya Prakash S/o S/o Shri Man Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o
        Village Sikahara, Police Station Matsena, District- Firozabad,
        (Uttar- Pradesh)., District : Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh

                                                                             ---- Petitioner

                                           Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
        Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And
        Post Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
        Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter (Phq), Near
        Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station, And Post Rakhi,
        Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh

     3. Commandant, Office Of Commandant, 2nd Battalion Chhattisgarh,
        Armed Force (C. A. F.), Sakri Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur,
        Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                         ---- Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. AG

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 01/05/2018

1. At this stage, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of termination one year before. The same has remained pending.

2. Without commenting upon the merits of the case at this stage, I am inclined to dispose off the matter with direction to appellate authority to decide the petitioner's pending appeal as early as possible preferably within three months.

3. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit