^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH W.P.fSl N0. AT BILASPUR -^p\\ RCrO<^ /2oio(S.B.t PETITIONERS 4 ^ ^...^y. y^/ v .^-- .. 1. Madho Singh Gouriya, S/o Malluram Gouriya, aged about 54 years, R/o Village Parsuli, Post Khertha Bazar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) / 2.^ Chain Singh Ganware, S/o Fattesingh Ganware, aged about 54 years, R/o Village & post- Kodekasha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Ghanshyam Sahu, S/o Latkhor Ram Sahu, aged about 44 years, R/o Village and post Bheemkanhar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) •e^\. . ..„..„,„.. 4; Manohar Lal Sinha, S/o Kej'u Ram Sin ha, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Manki, Post Arjunda, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5. Kastur Ram Rawate, S/o Guhari Ram Rawate, aged about 47 years, R/o Village 85 post Bargaon, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) 6. Alakh Ram Rathore, S/o Asharam Rathore, aged about 51 years, R/o Villg.ge 85 Post Bheemkanhar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^ \/ 7.' Ghanshyam Singh Patel, S/o Jharu. Ram Patel, aged about 47 years, R/o Village - Bhedi, Post Dondi Lohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) &f Abdul Shafiq Khan, S/o Abdul Gaffur Khan, aged about 46 years, R/o Village SE Post Dondi Lohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) /' 9. Khambhan Lal, S/o Daulat Ram, aged about 54 years, R/o Village Nangutola, Post Bhanwarmara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 10: Preet Bai, W/o Tahjuram, aged about 51 years, R/o Village Badajungera, Post Kodekasa, Distt. Durg (C.G.) <•'" 11. Dharam Singh, S/o Bideram, aged about 44 years, R/o Village and post Ghotiya, Distt. Durg (C.G.) / 12. Smt. Amrotin Bai, W/o Akturam, aged about 50 years, R/o Village and Post Dondi Lohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 13. Kansh Kumar Sahu, S/o Surit Ram Sahu, aged about 44 years, R/6 Village Raipura, Post Sambalpur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) t[b^""'"-'~tj'n"i*~-rr ^ ^ 14. Rajkumar Nayak, S/o Jotsingh Nayak, aged about 41 years, R/o Village Badajun gera, Post Kodekasa, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) 15. Dhurpal Singh, S/o Sunher, aged about 46 years, R/o Village and Post Dondi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Nirmal Kumar, S/o Bannu Ram, aged about 54 years, R/o Village Batera, Post Dondi Lohara, Distt. Durg , (C.G.) 17. Krishan Kumar Urbasha, S/o Radhe lal, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Jatadah, Post Sahgagaon, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 18. Ram Milan Nayak, S/o Asha Ram , aged about 49 years, R/o Village Garka, Post Bheemkahnar, Distt. Dur? (C.G.) 19"' Jeev Rakhan Mankar, S/o Sagar, 48 years, R/o Village Bhendi, Post Dondilohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2D. Gautam Ram Pisda, S/o Setram, aged about 52 years, R/o Village Semardhi, Post Sambalpur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) » (O VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l^ State of Chhattisgarh Through- The secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2^ Assistant Conimissioner, Tribal Welfare, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Collector, Tribal Development, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Welfare Development, Donidilohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5. r Block Education Officer, Dondi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title above. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THIS PETITION IS MADE AND SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF l.':;1:; : 1^-^ ^nTT;!!'sr!Im'B73 ^^St^'ji^^SS^^^ ^ 2^- r3 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB LHOIt>BLEMR,JUST!^_PR!!imtERD!WAKER W.P,jS).NO, 2002/2011 PETITIONER Madho Singh Gounya & Others versus RESPONDENTS State ofC.G. & Ofhers Sbri B.P.Siagh, counsel for the petitioneis. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WMTPBTn*IQNU!roBRARTlCLE2^60FTHBCOWSTXTUTIOj OF IDTOL4 ORDER (31.10.2011) Couasel for the petitioners subiaits fhat for the redressal of their grievaace, the petitioners have aheady filed representation (Annexure P/7) and at this stage, they xnay be permitted to withdraw fhis petition with Uberiy to pursue their representation. He however submits that direction inay be issued to fhe coinpetent authority for deciding fheir pendiag representation. State couiisel poiats out fhat fhe nature of appoiatment of fhe petitioners are entirely difFerent aad fherefoie the petitioners are not entitled for aay relief. Be that as it aiay, as the representatioa of the petitioners is ah'eady pendiag before the respondent No.2 it is expected finm the sald aufhority to decide the same as expeditiously as possibfe, in accoi-dance with law. Accordingly, fhe petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the Hberh' as aforesaid. It is inade clear that fhis Court ttas not expressed aay opinion on- nierits of the case and the authorifr concemed would be at libcrty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. p,Uta*et^aka( jud&e W^i