^ ^ CPII^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION fC) N0. l5T^^ OF 2010 PETITIONER >'B'"" ft: ^ II ,,,,^^fe^^ j 'v^^-^^/ ii:y^y '"^Ksxsssssy RESPONDENTS >,.- Smt. Indu Kashyap Wife of Shri Rajendra Kashyap, aged about 40 years, President, Kashyap Machhua Samiti, Ambikapur, Resident of Shastri Ward, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS 1. ^ State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2.r The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 3.f The Commissioner, Munidpal Corporation Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ^^"^ ^.^y 1, ^'^•"" INDIA ^\ Amit HIGff COURT OF OHHAITBGARH AT BILASPUR WR1T PETmON (0 No. 1559 of2010 PET1TIONER : Smt. Indu Kashyap. VERSU8 RE8PONDENT8 : State ofChhattis^rh & Otfaers. WRIT PETmON UNDER AR'NCLE 226 OF THE CONS'n'rmiON OP INDIA SB: Hon'Mc Shri Satisb K. Asnaiotri. J. Present: Shri V.K.Pandey, Advocate for the petiti<aier. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondeid No. 1 & 2. Slm Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate fbr the respotideiit No. 3. OKDEM^ORAL) (Passed oa 04UI day of August, 2010) 1. Leaiiied counsel appearmg for tiie petition^r suteiits that fhe petitioner does not want to press fhis petition cm merits as subsequ^nt developments have tak^n place. However, Ae representa^on (teted 04.09.2009 (Annexure P/6), is pending consideratioti before tfae respondent No. 3, tiiat may be directed to be comidered in accordance wifh law at the earlie^. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg &r the respondent No. 3 svhmits tiat tiie petitioner, without approaching tfae respondent No. 3, has approached this Court directly for getting the dispute resolved . He furtfaer submits Ifaat the representatio3EL as afbrestated, would be considered in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 3. In view oftiie above, the writ petition is disposed of wilti a direction to tlie respondent No. 3 fhatthe representation ofthe petitioaer, ifpending, as atbrestated, may be considered aad deeided in accordance with law, cn its own merit aad perspeotive, as early as possible, pref^rabty wifhia a period oflfaree weeks fi-om the date ofreceipt ofa copy oftfais order. 4. No order asto costs. - Sd/- I SatishK.Agnihom Judge