mm (Wu) ' ‘ mmetfgamt -—--PE-T‘-l¥i6NERs '1. ” s’a"n'Fosh Kumar‘ Boh'are,”S/o‘ $hri Rameshwar Dayai, Aged about 3S years, Presentiy posted as Head Constab!e in 15‘ Batallian, C.A.F. Bhiiai, Distt. Duvg (CG) \\ Single Bench: Hon’ble g‘hri Dhirenqra Mishra, J. W / , 2. v Dinesh PateL Slo Shri Ram Kumar Patel, Aged about 30 years, Presentiy posted as Head Constabie in 15‘ Batallian, C.A.F., Bhi!ai. Dsstt. Durg (CG) ‘ 3. Surya Prakash Wasnik, Sic Shri Onkar Da‘s Wasnik, Aged about 30 years, Presentiy posted as Head Constab:e in 15‘ Batauian, c.A.F. Bhilai, Disti. Durg (CG) ~Versuew _ RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgerh; through the Chief Secretary, D‘K’.S. Bhawan. Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 3. The Director Gerieral of Polioe, Special Armed Force, Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG) ‘ 4. The Director Geheral of Police, Special Armed Force, Bhopal (M.P.) V5. Union of India, Through Secretary, /' - ;‘ Public Grievance, Khan Market, New r Delhi. MW WWwm&mv ‘ v mam—w; y m mm mm 111200 Mm(mu) {mmm b“ / WW wW mmm 31mm & §€Wm¥1 2311-2005:- Shri Arun Shukla, counsel for th‘a petitioners. ' Miss Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer t the Stateirespondent No.1. Shri J.A. Lohani, counsel for res ondent No.5. By this petition, the. petitioner have prayed for a direction to the Irespondents to allocate their services t the State of Madhya Pradesh. The case of the petitioners is at they were initially appointed in the apartment of Home, Special Armed Force under the State of M.P.. They had given their option for going b ck to the State of MP. along with representation. However, in spite oft at, the respondents have not paid any heed to the request of the petitioners. l have heard learned counsel fo the parties. Taking into consideration the f ct that the allocation took place in the year 2000, the instant petition has be n tiled after more than 8 years without any explanation for delay and represertations submitted by the petitioners are undated and further that there is no evidence whether the same were ' dispatched to the concerned authorities or received by them, this Court is of , :he view that the instant petition dese yes to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, at the admission stag e itself and it is accordinglymed. Sdl— Dhirendra MiShl‘a Judge a r / .WM Ban/e / "two.“ We.“ “awn...” “New, re. ... \ r , ,, _ . V