A i^ 'll^rma \"^ •) ... i .^ ^. ^~ / / Aft^ L^" im S HI@H C0l38£ OP Mtt©HX&PRrtE^SH M1 J<akB^LPiR M*P. N0,. //^~76f 19§2» PJ@PITI© 8. Ma^aaraa Pal» aged about 45 years^ son of Sfori Shree Pal^ by oacapation ^ service^ resident ©f^urana Tliaaa Para^ BeMnd Jaia Maadir^ Tahsil Bagbafoara, ©istrxetRaigv.r<» VBRSlS RESPOKBSEB'S 1< The Offieer incSa&rge, Krishi ^paj Mandi Sa^iti^ Bagbabara^ District Ratpar^ 2<» The ©eputySearetary^ Maadi B©ard^ Kalp^r^ 3< The ^dditional Director^ Maadies, Bireatorate of Nandies^ Safoakar Bhawan^ Madhya Pradesh^ Bhopal^ 4. Ttee Sfate of Madiya Pradesh through tlxe Secretary^ Ministry of ^griault^re^ Bhopal» 5» Shri Vijay Shankar Ntggn, soa of Shri ©lana^rasad Nlgam^ resideat ©£^arra^ <I?ahsil MahasamuBd^ Distriet Raipur* PESrPBQN ^aDEB AgSICLE 22g AND 327> CX3NS'ItI3'iS'I©NQF 18©lft< Y_ j7 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILA8PUR Sin^e Bench: Hon>ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 1167 OF 1992 Petitioner : Manharaa Pal Versus Respondents : Officer Incharge, Krishi Upaj Maadi Samiti, aad Ofhers. Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Raxibir Sin.gh Marhas, couusel for respondents No. 1, 2and3. Sint. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Goveniraent Advocate for State/respondent No.4. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No,5. ORAL ORDBR (20th March, 2006) 1. Learaed coiiusel appeariag for the petitioner submits that ttiis petition has becoiae iafructuous, in view of the fact fhat fhe suspension order dated 9.11.90, which was subject inatter of challenge ia the petition has been revoked subsequenfly ia the year 1992, As such, nothing sun?rives ia the inatter. Learaed counsel appearmg for fhe respondents have no objection. 2. As a result, fhis petition is disraissed as haviag beconie uifhictuous. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sadsh K. Agnihotri Judge c^-