’ ~ I ars K ii,e abou s _hi hy a, Hg ~ nf P ar, src. ' Bu— ttsgar VERsus‘ t atis hro ecrr ovn hhttia Dpa f ' P ur el, t Bhan i isrh ll't, n, t. Datada, hhattish. xi ficr, O sr a out Bar DteaOa tr inal s, ip gah WRIT PETITION UNDER. ARTICLE 1226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DA FOR ISSUANCE ’OF A‘WRT OR:WRITS IN THE/NATURE 'OF Coecor Datewada’ Disrict new Cgar ‘. Chief Eecutve Ofe ffice, DitEt Panchayt», Sh sta anw Chhatisgah Eaminatons xi INI I MANDAMUS’,‘ i CERTIORARII’F- PROHIBITION, DIRECTION: L‘ OR DIRECTIONS ORDERS ORORDERS OR THE LIKE. IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2K3 8 OF 2010 PETITIONER WRIT PETITION(S) No: Chndeh umar Twaf,agd t 33 year S/oS[ Radhesam Tiwri‘ R/o Viae - Haa, .o. Ski Ditit ilaspr, Chhaih RESPONDENTS Stae of Chhtgarh, Tugh Setay, Gernmet of Casgrh edment o anchayat and Ral ’ Dveopment Manralaya, DKS wa, . Rapur, Chhattga Chhattisgarh Professo Diviion Raur Chhattisr \\v. \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z'BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlON 1S) NO.2508 OF 2010 PETITIONER Chandresh Kumar Tiwari RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench 2 Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Dhiraj Whankhade, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Vikrant Singh, counsel for the respondent No.3. {A Versus ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 31$ day of March. 201 1) Gowri 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. ln the petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to participate in the counseling, which was to be held on 20-5—2009. rThe time has come to an end and, as such, no mandamus can be issued today when the counseling had already been conducted and thereafter, appointments have taken place. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. W V Stu- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI: Judge V “If ‘