$GN€§€£ %E§\W‘E In the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilasgur WP (S) - / 2011 Petition Under Art. 226 of the Constitution oflndia ............,.trMum...“ ,i t W. Petitioner Umesh Kumar Jagat, Aged 44 S/o Mukardam Jagat Raj Rajeshwari Durga Chowk Katora Talab, Civil Lines] Raipur Versus / Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary, Deptt. Agriculture, . /Raipur. 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipmm K, Board, Raipur. 3. Deputy Commissioner Census Charge Officer, . Palika HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH ’XT BILAS PUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 480 0f2011 PETI'HON LWDER AR'I 1CLE 226 OE THE CONS’I‘ITU'I‘ION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ ble Shri Satish k Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Ram Shanna. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Aj ay Dwivedi, Deputy Govennnent Advocats for the StatefreSpondent N0. 1. Shri Vikrant Singh, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ~ ORDER (ORAL) (Pasged on 12' day ofMay. 201 1) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue oftransfer, involved in this petition. has come to an end on account . ofthe fact that census work is over. Thus, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. However, the petitioner wishes to make a representation to the respondent authorities for other consequential benefits. O 2. Learned counsel appearing for other side have no obj ection. 3 Since there is no prayer for grant of consequential benefits in the petition: it is not necessaty to grant any pennission to make a representation. If the petitioner wants to make a representation, he is free to do so. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation, it‘so advised. Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit PETITIONER Umesh Kumar Jagai. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others.