3mm£ §5§§£fm 1 @b 1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . (c.G.) W.I’.S No 201 ETITIONERS: 1. Pappu Kumar Patel, Aged about 22 years, S/ o Shri Lala Ram Patel, R/ o Ward no. 7, Brahman Para, Tumgaon, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) Santosh Kuma Sahu, Aged about 26 years, o Shri Lila am Sahu, R/ o Kabir Chowk, Ward no, 14, Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon, District — Mahasamund (C.G.) Govind Nirmalkar, Aged about 37 years, S/ o Late‘Shri Ganguram Nirmalkar, R/ o Ward no. 11, Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) omar Yadav, S/o Motiram Yadav, Aged aout 28 years, R/ o Ward no. 11, Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) Purshottarn Nirmalkar, S/ o Shivnarayan Nirmalkar, Aged about 22 years, R/ o Ward no. 1, Near Post office, Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ska; WAR‘MM V b “(“1 Rajesh Kumar Dubey, S/o Shaeubey, mauXu Aged about 40 years, R/ o Ekta Chowk, Mahasaund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) . Dinesh umar Patkar, S/o Shri Raju lal Patkar, Aged abo t 25 years, R/o Police P ’ . r S/ R . . D b . 1 . m K 2 C\ Line, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 8. Kenru Kishan, S/ o Shri Chinnu Kishan, Aged about 25 years, R/ o Nayapara, Mahasamund, District ~ Mahasamund (C.G.) 9. Lala Ram Sahu, S/ o Shri Gulab Ram, Aged about 47 yeaxs R/ o Ward no. 7, Brahman Para, Tumgaon, District — Mahasamund (c.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: /’1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Principal Secretary Department of Urban Administration and Development Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The Under Secretary Department of Urban Administration and Development Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) A 3. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF y” l/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR 4 90 WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 326 OF 2011 PETITIONERS Pappu Kumar Patel &0thers Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8: Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie) t Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Abhinav Kardekar, Advocate forthe petitioners. r r r Shri Ajit Singh. Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents No.1 & 2. l. . Shri Praful Bharat, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER ORAL ,, . (Passed on 11 day of Maroh,’ 201 1) At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly y and fairly submit that the issue involved in the present petition as well as in Dhaniram & Others v. State of Chhatb‘sgarh &,, Others’ which was considered and decided by this Court on 20.01.20“, are identical. Thereafter, the, said issue was reconsidered in Virendra Des Manikpun' & Others v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz, by this Court on 10.02.2011. Thus, theinstant, petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this court in Dheniram & Others’ and Virendra Das Manikpun' & Others? y ln view of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in terms of the orders ‘ passed in Dhaniram & Others’ and. Virendra Des Manikpuri & Othetsz. Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok ‘w.P (S) No 6798 of 2010 decided on 20 o1 2011 2 w.P.(s) No. 7450 of2010', decided on 10.02.201.11 a