€) $^I©HCOURT OF CHHATTESeARH AT KELASPUR Writ Petitior. {5) No. 4045 of 2008 Petition&r SorBlol Banjare, og&ei obout 43 years, Son of Shri Santokt &3aijare. R/o. Behind Bedu Body Builder, giiaspur, &istrict Bilaspur (C.6.) Versus Respondent5 1. State of Chhfittisgarh, Through : The SecreTary, PanchaT and Rurot Development Deportment, D.K.S. ghawan, Raipur (C.@.) 2. AddiTionai Secretary, PcaidtGE/at and ©ramin Development department/ Raipur (C.G.) 3. 5tste of Chharrisgarh, Through : The Sec tar-y, Irr-i9&tion beparttiisnt, b^-5. Bhawon, Raipur (C.6.) 4. Engiriser in <3?ii<sf, Water (tesourcss, DeparTment, Sihowa Bhcwan. Raipur (€.<&.) 5. Chief Exacutiv^ Offsc&r, Janpad PcBichayat Masturi. DtSTrt'ct BiSa^ur (C.<5.) WS^TT PFraTION UN&ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA Sirigle Bencb : Mon'ble Mr. Sotish K. Agnihotri. J. SSnn P- P, So}iu, AdvoCTte for the petitioner. Shri ya^hi^snt Sngh Thakur, &&puty Adyocote (Sen&rol wilii Mi5S Sunita Jain, Pahel Lawyer for The respondents/STate. ORAL ORbER (Pas-sed on this 28th day of Juty, 20C^) I- With th& cwiseyi^ of l&crnfed counsel oppeoring for th& pcrti&s, the petstion is heard finfilly. 2. Leornad coun5&l app&aring for -ttie petstsoner submitjs thcst the petitbn&r do&5 not want to cont&st thss motter on merit^, at -rtiis stags. Howev&r, th& p&tition&r nfscsy b& parmitt&d to makB a repre^entatiori before the conc&rned authorit^s within o period of -tnree days 'm the Si^ht of tiie judgment <)in<j onler dated 28th Juiy, 2008 pass&d by this Cou^ in Writ Petition (5) No. 2607 of 2008 (Azad Mohainmad Khan Vs. Stote of Chhattisgari's ^ anoth^r) and other conn&cted niattar, and tha same r?ifly b& dsrected to te consid&red and decsd&d, iri accorAmce with bw, within the prs^eribed tim&. 3. Shri Yashwant Singh Thokur, {eanied beput^ Advocate ^&neral, appearing for th& rejSpondents/StGtB ^jbmits 1+iat if the pres&ntc3tion is made by the p^titioner, the some ^hQll be con^idered and decided by the concern&d duthonty, in accordanca with bw, on its own merits, within Q period of three v ej<5 from 1+ie date of rec&ipt of the representation^ 4. Shri Thakur further submitfi; that no coercive fite^s ^hfilt te tak&n, ti!S the dispossA of the repr&fientati^i. 5. I hopa and tnist that th& St€st& 5o\^rnm&nt shalt ^xamin& th& repr&seritoti'on, objectively, in Qccorcfance with law emd gutd&tin&s, issu&d by the ^ovemm&nt, tim& to time- 6. In vi&w of ti-ie for^oing, the pstition stands di^osed of- No ordar GStO COStS. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur