H^ S.S •P, Us c^J^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C.No. ^^< /2010(S.B.) w^8@ u (Arising out of W.P.S.No.6732/2008 being a party Anupa Rathre and another Vs. The Chief Executive OfGcer Palari 8s others ) APPLICANTS tft-'... ds^ •"' yie®6" eAea-- w^!ss^> y ^" ~ *'»•^'%v << \ 't". \ S.l'!. ff -i' »yJC'WS~^' Anupa Ratre, aged about 2 1 years, W/o Jariram Ratre, Contesting Candidates for Angan Badi Worker, Resident of Village Ghirghol in the Tahsil and Block Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) Lekhni Sahu W/o Mohit Sahu, aged about 26 years, Contesting Candidates for Angan Badi Worker, Resident of Village Guma in the Tahsil and Block Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ESPONDENTS: The Chief Executive Officer, Palari, Janpad Panchayat and Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) ^2) The Collector Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ^— •s.K, yidwci 'f^ 3) The State Through: Department of Chhattisgarh The Secreta^ of Panchayat 8s \' .5)- 6-) Rural Development Secretariat D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Janpad Panchayat Palari, Through 'the Chief Executive Officer, Palari. J> ^f-f-,^-•^1"^ The Director Directorate of Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Sunita W/o Mangal Chand, aged about 23 years, (Disputed ) Anganbadi Worker R/o Village Ghirghol in the Janpad Panchayat and Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) Sarita Verma W/o Degeshwar, aged about 23 years, (Disputed) Anganbadi Worker, R/o Village Guma in the Janpad Panchayat Palari, District Raipur APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION AND RE-ADMISSION THE WRIT PETITION(S) N0.6^32/2008 7^ \\ Co 'S^ET "lii<ii<7('zr, s>Til<i"<o, fs<diyy,< .„,,^, -.„;-.......M-..c.:..(~.:...^.:..^.^.. '^Wv{\ (h^lek —••»••*—•—••••"- •—•^^200 sn^T'T^? (lic<Id'<'i.t:i) an^i w W ^Ttsn^T^qN? TOIIW^telsmtn tt)i^<T<i^f '^P^ ^f fe(st O^I-^K i?affiwaii%?t .». SB PRITmKER DIWAKER 26.10.2010 Shri O.P.Yadav, counsel foil the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhari, P.L..I for the State/resos. 2 ,3 8s 5. Heard on M.C.C. No. 585/2010, whioh is an application for restoration of W.P. (S) No. 6732/2008 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.9.2010 forwant of prosecution. This is not opposed by the State counsel. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Accordingly, M.C.C. No. 585/ 10 is allowed and W.P. (S) No. 6732/2008 is restored to its original number. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge