XE~HC-22 ilk??? rim W&%4gn;gw @bRefrcvwca h a- mmmgm W mW yawn-s: W DM Qm )........ ”wife. 133 299' c% C‘é‘fw/L/s ‘ P'A/gaé/w wiéz'i by 7. . it b2? checked lixaa‘ far... W . . as. ymw' V‘i‘ The peiitlcn checked n appears w be propafv J udge$ fat order en int... . #rcwr drawn-up. V ew duly documants. s’amped. I! be and registered is accompanied and pla- Q \a'Vl‘g‘mH‘ 4, W7 i, ‘ :I‘T" ' R(.3) . . . . s W (58 . 3GH COURT OF JUD!CAT RE CHHATT¥S5ARH : BILA$PUR ' CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, CJ & HON’BLE SHR! V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. WRIT PETITION NO. 166112001 PRESENT: Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate appears as Amicus Curiae. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State, ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16"“ November, 20am The foilowing orai order of the Court was passed by SR. Nayak, C.J. This writ petition has been registered suo moto by this Court on the basis of news item published in the daily newspaper, namely, “Hindustan Times” dated 02/09/1991. The news item reported that as a result of some dispute between the scheduled caste families and the upper class families in village Jiradabri in Mahasamund District, the scheduled caste families were not being permitted to purchase goods and other essential articles from the local shops and consequently, the members of scheduled caste families had to walk 7 - 8 kilometers for earning their livelihood and to purchase essential commodities for their livelihood. in response to the notice issued by this Court, on behalf of the respondents, a return dated 18/01/2003 supported by an affidavit of ‘Shri Goverdhan singh Thakur, S/o. Shri B.S. Thakur, Sub-Divisional Poiice Officer, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, and Officer incharge of the case, is tiled. in para six of the return, it is stated that the local people PETlTicNERS in Reference Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. beionging to two groups, due to intervention of the public authorities, were agreed to burry their differences, live in peace and harmony and not to have any frictions in future in the locality. ln that regard, a Panchnama signed by the representatives belonging to both the groups was also executed. The incident had taken place in the year 2001 and this writ petition is coming up for nnal dispo’eal in 2006. There is nothing to show that the situation that obtained when this Court suo moto registered the report published in the newspaper as a writ petition still subsists. On the other hand, the return of the respondents would show that immediately after the incident, clue to their intervention, tnat differences between the two groups were buried and they agreed to keep peace and harmony . in that view of the matter, there is no need for us to pass any further direction. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. V.K. Shrivastava, Sd/- Judge Sdl- Chief Justice ‘