« \^ c/ t^S'M&.l .ra. IN$HEHIGH.COURT0F'BHHA^TlSaARH ^ATBILASPUR wmTPETmow^ PETITIONER :/ Kuniart Kalpana Tiwari D/o Late Shri Rayishanker Tiwari , aged abolit 42 years, ; resident 'of Pandey Asl-u-am ', Ram Saptali" Ghowk , Bhatapara , - Distriet R£dpur(CG). VERSUS RESFONDENTS ;fr.The State of CKhattisgarh, /] through the SeefetEu-y, Higher EdT-ication Department, Manfralay , E>. K; 8. Bhawan, Raipur(CG). ,0^ li<^^. 4 .^i-li^ ^<^\ ^^' ^^^v te. 'lDeputy Secretary , Chhattisgarh Higher Education Departiiient, D.K.S. Building.Raipur (CG). [3. Du-ector , Directorate of Higher Education Department, D.K.S. BuUdmg , Raipur (CG), l4. Joint Directpr, Directorate 6f Highfer l-^Education, D.K.S. Building, Raipur '(CG)..' 1:'•,: •/•.''':';.^ ^5. State of Madhya Pradesh, through tKe Secretary DepartiFterit ofHigher Education, Valtabh Bhawan , Bhopal(MP). 76, Director, Directorate of Higher Education,^ M Pradesh, Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). y7; Jornt Director, Directorate 6f Higher Educa.fi.on, Madfaya Pradesh, Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal w'^ sKM ;SS$t ;BSI '8 .s WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA IK ,» Gowri HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4296 OF 2007 PETITIONER Kumari Kalpana Tiwari Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Other^ (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State of Chhattisgarh. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the State of Madhya Pradesh. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 9th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the very outset, Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, very fairly, submits that the instant petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P. (S) No.955 of 2005 for the same relief, as sought for in this petition, wherein this Court by order dated 13-7-2006 after having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, granted permission to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent State. The petitioner instead of making a representation to the State of Madhya Pradesh filed a representation to the State of Chhattisgarh. Itwas rejected on the ground that the representation has to be made before the State of Madhya Pradesh. 3. In view of the above, Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, prays that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to make a representation to the State of Madhya Pradesh, to which learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh has no objection. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above-stated liberty. The petitioner may do the needful in view of the order dated 13-7-2006 passed by this Court in W.P." (S) No.955of2005. F I *>cu~ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /•