IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. ] "/ 2_0 OF 2005 PETITIONER '^ 'L 1&..^%>-' .-•••^ ...>"'1..F"""^^" ?..^-"^w'ya'v""^-^0 %s-^<"' '^\^< RESPONDENTS : Jai Krishn Pradhan S/o Late Shri Degree Lal Pradhan, aged about 46 years, Occupation service as^ daily wages employee in Water Resource Department, Sub Division No.l Saraipali, resident of Village and Post Kasalwa 'Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary Department of Water Resources, D.K.S. Building Raipur (C.G.) ^rvcy -s' G;'JX.(5'? The Collector, Mahasamund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) The Deputy Collector, Mahasamund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resource Department, Sub Division, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG). WRIT PETITION U/S 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 4. Kfs^ ^s! HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1720 of 2005 Petitioner Jai Krishn Pradhan Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers fiyrit Petition uuder Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Sarfaraj Khan, Advocate for the petit&ner. Ms Sunita Jaia, Panel Lawyer for fhe respondents. t ORDER (Oralt (Passed on this 17& day of September, 2009) Heard. 1. Thdcur. Leanied counsel appearing for fhe petitioner, on instoructions, submits that fhe petitioner does not waiit to contest fhis petition on merits, at tlus stage aad prays for wifhdrawal offhis petition. However, fhe petitioner inay be permitted to inake a representation and fhe respondents niay be directed to coinply wifh the order dated 21.1.1999 (Annexure P/l), in accordance with law, on its own merits, withm sdpulated period. Learned counsel appearmg for the respondents/State submits fhat ifa representation is rnade by the petitioner, the same shaU be considered and decided, in accordaace wifh law, on its own nierits, wifhiu a period ofe^ht weeks fiuin the date ofreceipt of the representation. In view of fhe foregoiag, fhe petition is dismissed as withdrawn wifh the above-stated liberty. It is expected fhat fhe concemed authority would consider and decide the representation, if aay, withia a period of e^ht weeks irom- the date of receipt of fhe same. No onler asto costs. _ __ _ __ ___. Sd/- i Satish K. Agnlhotri Judge