HEgH GQ’LERT Q? SHH§TTESGAR§% #1“ §HU3£$FL§R DEW$§GN BENGH G€3§9$3M : SaiGN’ELE $HRE HAW DATT& {L5, EdiQH’ELE $HR! DR. DE$HM£§KR, £. ‘éiEFrii Pe€§€i0r§ N61§9§M €33: gém Pgtmgmm" i Laxmah Ram Teke SIC Late Shri Bhagwan Rae Ram Take Rio — 9x Jai ViharCemny, Raipur Versus. State of ChhattiEgarh,. through »Secr‘eiar\;, Department Qf City Administration and Development (Nagai’iaye Praehaehan Avam Vikas‘; Mantramya, DR Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Rememdgfg Pe iiion under Am 1e 226/927 0f the Conetééutéon of indie. Shri Kiehefe Bhaduri, counsel for the petitiener. Snri $umeeh Baja}, GA for the Siate. QRAL GREER @aegea‘jW. oi“; 3Q ApriL 39m; x .m, T'ne foliowing 0ral order of the Cour? was passed by H.L,Da?:i1a, GJ. : We are of the opinion the? at this stage, mining suwivee in t‘nis writ peiiiion fer consideration and decieien ef this Ceurt. Learned ceuneei appearing for the peiitioner’ (2} in iha’c View of the matter, the writ petition ie diepoeed at a3 having becomeini‘ruetuoue. Ordered aocordingiy. i f the same opinien. “V i i i V i Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge sdl- r Chief Jus§ce ‘ ( 7.;