/ PETITIONER IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR :£.) Writ Petition Xim^Artrcte^2W40. ^79 cy^ CB^ /2008 ^^- wff€>'- ^^/^" ;'^\rx' RESPONDENTS ^^yy^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ Smt. Dukhni Bai Wd/o. Late Hriday lal Farikar Aged about 60 years, President Vijay Jalkshatri Fishery Cooperative Society KanKalipara ;District Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1] State OfChhattisgarh, Through :- Collector, Raipur District Raipur (C.G) 2] Chief Municipal Commissioner Raipur; DistrictRaipur (C.G) 3] ChiefMunicipal Officer Fishery & Agriculture Development Abhikaran; Raipur (C.G) 4] ChiefExecutive Officer Fishery & Agriculture Development Abhikaran; Raipur (C.G) 5] Revenue Officer Municipal Corporation; Raipur (C.G) 6] Bhaiyaram Nishad President Machhawara Samhu Fundhar; Dr. Rajendra Prasad Ward No. 46 District Raipur (C.G) 7] Ganishi President Suddhar Swa Sahayata Samuh, Amladauh; District Raipur (C.G) ^ 8 WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22<? OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA^- € 1 Petitioner COURT OF CHHATT3SGARH AT Smt. Dukhni Bai Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITiON UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDiA (SB : Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri V.A. Goverdhan , Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri U.N.S. Dev, Advocate forthe respondent No.2. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on 30th day of June, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner does not want to press any other relief except that the objectlon dated 06/01/2007 (Annexure P/8) pending before the Revenue Offlcer, Munidpai Corporatlon, Raipur, may be decided wjthin the stipuiated time. 2. Shri Dev, iearned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Shri Shashank Thakur, iearned counsel appearing for the State submit that the pending application dated 06/01/2007 shail be considered and decsded, In accordance with iaw and on Its own merits, as eariy as possibie preferabiy within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. In view of foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing fore the petitioner nothing survives in this petltion for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Arun Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge