r?^^:vy. ^.^sif1:s^""" ^ess!'*''...--""""^-:': ,' !k..-'"" 1 ^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR W. P. (S). No.3^> 95'/2009 PETITIONER RBSPQNDENTS ^ ^t .^i^~ •^J/^y Sanjay Kumar Yadav, son of late Ratan Lal Yaday,aged abouf 26 years, R/o. In front of Vrindavan School, Ward No.2, Inilibhatha, Mahasaniund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus :1) State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Home Departraenf DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) :2) Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) :3) Inspector General of Police (Adrainistration) Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.Cr.) :4) Syperintendent of Police, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITU^ON OF INDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WMT/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS, DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS etc. T XI-HC—78 3ff^['^T ^Jab ^W ^H^T shHJoh '3^ •r^i&iic'i"4,y<i1<i<i(o, f®i^i'y^< *IIWI*Ni*--tAi-e-cs^-'%^00<) 3n^?T'(^R> (^f^q^T) 's^nw ^fsn ^ni^T BB ; HOSS^BLB SHRI JUSTl 02.07.2009 Shn Viaod Tekam., co] Shri Yashwaiit Siaghj Dubey, P.L. for the State. Grievaace of fhe peti| father, late Ratan Lal Yad^v coiapasslonate appoiiitoien| date neither he has b4 coianiunica.tiou has been id he has already made 4 (Annexure P/4) to the Su^ biit yet notliiog has been dc} Leained counsel for 1 niay be issued to the ^ representation of fhe petiti<| waiits to withdraw fhe pres^ Learaed counsel foj representation has alread}| saoie along with appUcatioj by fhe respondeut No.4 ia Accordingly, the peti^ respondent No.4 is directedj cM€({<rt<ili ^i+^riT ^f fs^ if^i^K ^^RwsTr^T CE PRITINSCBR DIWAKER iinsel for the petitioner. Thakur, Dy. A.G. wifh Shri Arvind fioner is fhat after tlie deafh of Uis on 21.7.2004, he has appUed for : before the respoudeut No.4 but tiU ;en glven appoiatment nor aay ade to hiiu, He furfher subinits tiiat representation dated 22.9.2008 enatendent of Police, Mahasamund >ne. he petitioner subnxits tliat d:kection espondent No.4 for deciduxg the sner aud witli tliis Imiited prayer he ;nt petitlou. the State subinits fhat if the been rsiade aad not decided, the n of petltioner would be considered ccordaiice wifh law. ion is dismissed as withdrawn. The to decide the case offhe petitioner if 4-. ^- i '^^ XI-HC—78 311^T ^T Tqii^ ^T^T 3r??^T ^lN? &. r:\ n/" •<p ^^r ^!^i<n^, ^•al^4i<o/[^<ni^^< n^........U£..CS^....^>.^i^.- NiNc^l (bHlck " ' ~^ ~ / Wt; a^T TR^ ('^5^) ^"^TW ^a 3H^? —z- not decided, wifhia a pexiodj receipt of fhis order. It is niade clear fhat tlfis on raerits of fhe case and thfc represeutation considermg ft^e ia accordao.ee witb. law. Tlle obUgatioii to apprise th.e sai<| direction. ^I^id^l^ 1RP^ff ^f ft%t if^i^K ^3tRW3n^?T of three inonfhs froni tiie date of Court has not given aay opiaiou respondent No.4 shaU decide the eMgibiMty of the petitioner stdctly petitioner would be under the anthorily ia respect of fhe above Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge 4-.