$ing!s7 Bent (C p {m L IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH’VAT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) 7 w.P. No. 5/???) 0f 2006 Vikas, Korea, District Korea (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : PETITIONER :- Smt. Anukampa John (earlier Ku./' Anukampa Robinson), widow of Late Harendra Kumar John, aged About 53 years, resident of Behind “1% Civil Lines Police Station, Magar Para, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS :— 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Adim Jati Evam Harijan Kalyan Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 2. v Commissioner, Adim Jati Kalyanf Vibhag, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 3. Regional Deputy DirectOr, Adim“! Jati Evam Harijan Kalyan Vibhag, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), 4. Deputy Director, Adim Jati Kalyan , Vibhag, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh), 5. Collector (Adivasi Vikas), Korea, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), 6. Assistant Commissioner, Adivasi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4929 of 2006 M Petitioner Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8r. others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) " (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Smt. Anukampa John Versus Shx‘i H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri K. S. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn’ Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shn' A. V, Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. O R D E R {oran ( Passed on this 9th day of December, 2009 ) Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner has been permitted to join the duties and as such, nothing remains for adjudication in this writ petition. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to Withdiaw this writ petition. However, for other reliefr the petitioner may be permitted to " make a representation, which may be considered and decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents] State has no objection to the above submission made by learned counsel appealing for the petitioner. In View of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above—stated liberty, if so advised. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur h