'sy^i ,?%. 5 SSi /, INTHE HIGHCOURTOF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P.No. 838/2006 Petitioner / -y--'c_: ..-•/ .ao ..••/n^?-"' ..-^ ..••'s^--'''./ .q§^""' .-••'".^'e-^" •.^^^" ^--"/ ,A^' Ashok Kumar Maravi S/o ^,^. At^i^' Aged about 49 years, Presently posted as Nayab Tahsildar, Haldi Bazar, Tahsil Pali, Korba (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, Revenue Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Under Secretary, Revenue Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. The Collector, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Shri Anupam Tiwari, Nayab Tahsildar, Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICCE^27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF Amit COURT OF CHHATTISG-ARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRH- PETmON No. 838 of2006 Ashok Kumar Maravi S/o R.S.Maravi. aee .ra. iiboiit 49 ^'SM'S. Presditlv "oosted us Na'v^b Tahsildar.Haldi Bazar, Tahsil Pali. Korba /^"t /-^ -^ \:~.\J. t RESPONDENTS VERSUS Stats of Clihattisgarh - Throii.eh the Secretary. Reveaue Depailnieat, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Under Secretary, Revenue Department DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 3. Tlie Collector, Distt. Korba (C..G.) 4. Sliri Anupam Tiwari, Nayab Tahsi'dar, Raigarh (C.G.) WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB:.JIp3i'Me K. Agiiihotri,A Present: Sliri Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Saiita Ghai, Paael Lawyer forthe State/respondeuts 1 to 3. ) (Passed on 25"' day of June, 2009) Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner has already continued at the original place ofpostine for more than thres vears on account of interim order dated 09.03.2006 CTaiitsd bv this Court. Tlie State/respondents may be a-anted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Smt. Ghai farthei- submits that tfae State/respondents shall not msist upon compliance ofthe impugned order dated 24.12.2005 (Aimeaire P/l). At this stage, when no efFect coiild be siven to the impugned order dated 24.12.2005 on accouiit of the interim order dated 09.03.2006, it is not necessan-' to go into legalitv and validitv of the impusned order dated 24.12.2005. In view of the above, according to leamed counsel. appearine for the petitioner, nothing sun'ives in this petition for adjudication. Aceordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No ordei' asto costs. Interim relief aranted on 09.03.2006 is vacated. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge