^ PETmQNERS RESPQNDB'H-8 I»3HCOUR3'jQFCHHA3"I^0ARBA'EBIliASPUR WRrTPETTTIGNN6;a@'70fS<W » > 1. Dhaaesh Kumar Tsum-itou- S/o Late Sliri Qaag& Prasad Tanarakai, aged Aout 43 yeais, Posted as Clerk in the office of District CoUector, Bilaspw (Chhattisgarh). 2. Mukesh Kumar Saxeim S/o Late Shri B-S.Saxena, aged about 40 yeats, «Ex Offiee Sea'stary, Chhattisgarh Lip& Vai^iya Sfaaskiya KannaAari San^i, CMSce of fhe CNef Engmeer, Ha^eo Kachar, Bilasiwr, (CMiattisgaifa) VERSUS 1. State of ChhattisgMfa throu^ The Secretery, Departinart ofCotnniemee aad fadwtriss, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarii) 2. Appellate Authorily, Stata of Chhattisgarh, Thrcnigb SpecM Seceetary, Dqywtment of CotBmerce and Industries, D.K.S. Hiavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattfegaifa) 3. ChhattisgaA Lipik Vsffgiya Shask^ra Karmachari Sangh, Saqay Nagar, Tauirapara, Tehsil & Distt. Raipia- (ChhattisgaA) Throu^K Bhagwan Sin^l S/o Late Shri Driag Sw^s, aged 47 years, W^er Resources Division, Surajpiu-, Distriet Sargtija (ChhattisgaA) WRTT PETmON L^NDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CQNSTFTUTION OF INDIA SB:Hon'M!e Shri Satisto K. Aanftotri, A Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Souiabh Shaima, Advocate for tfae petitioner. Shri A-S.Kaehhwaha, Deputy Advocate Oena-alforthe State/respondeatNo. 1 aad 2. Ms. Astha Singh Sisodiya with Shri Rajeev Shrivasteva, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 3/Caveator. ORALORDER (Passed on 06U day of NovenAer, 20%) 1. By tfiis petition, Itae petitioners sedc to challenge the legality airi validity of Ihe ordCT dated 20.03.2006 whereby Ihe i^ecial SeCTetary/AppeBate Aufhca-ity, Commerce, Industeies and Public Sector Undertakings, dedared the election ofpetitioner No. l on Ifae post of President, CMiattisgarh Upik Vargiya Shashkiya Karmachari Ssca^a, Raipur (for Aort 'the San^i'), held on 17.7.2004, as Ulegal. Duriag paidency ofthis petition, a fresh elecfen fw tfae post ofPresidart ofthe Sandi had held on 04.11.2007, wherAy one ShnBhagwanSiBghhasbeendeclaFedelectedasPieskteHtoftteSan^h. ' \. -2- 2. Ms. Sisodiya- leatned counsel qq»eariagfia" fhe Bespondent No. 3 suhtntts 1hat tiiis petition has become infiiictuous m view oftheJi^metA^nd order dated 21.10.2008 passed in Review Petition No. 29 of2007 (Snt Shanti Bai v. Sart. Neera Maahar and Otfaers). 3. In flie case of Snrt. Shaati Bai fsupra), this Court held thrt subsequ^t election caimot be quaAed except in accordance with taw i.e. by ffling election petition. Since <fae election on flie post ofPresidait ofAe San^i had already taken place, nothing remains fw adjudicati<m. 4. For fhe reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishKAgnihotn Judge