311%31 W (W) mamm a2“mwm mm 111% anésr Wamxi'wm $Wsné31 DIVISION BENCH: ON'BLE MR. DHIRENDRA MI ON'BLE MR. DILIP RAOSAH M (WritAppeaI under Secfion 2 Cl: (Appeal To Divisi Mr. Sm‘yendra Sahu, Advocate fc Mr‘. J.K. Gilda, Addl. Advocm‘e 6e 26.11.2008 This wr'i’r appeal is directed ‘againsf fhe order dm‘ed 22.9.2008 passed in W.P. (c) No. 5302/08 by The Iearned Single Judge. During The course of orggumenTs, learned counsel for The Ie 17 of The CG. Ayurvedi Unani i Adhiniyam,, 1970 empowers The GovernmenT To declareany elecTion, ThaT has been held, To be void on ,\i\\ use 1 of fhe Chhm‘fisgar‘h High Courf 3n Bench) ACT, 2006) r The appellan’rs. neral for The STa’re. appellam‘ fairly submi’rs Tha? RL Tafha Prakr‘ific Chiki‘rsa Vyavas H S H EB \ Appellonf Dhar‘mendm Kumar Sinha, 5/0 Shri Tilakram (Pefi‘rioner' in Sinha, Aged abouf 27 year‘s, R/o Rishaipar‘a, WriT pefi’rion) Dhamfor‘i, Distric’r- Dhamtar‘i (6.6.) Vs . Responden‘rs 1. Sfafe of ChhaTTisgarhThrough The Secrefar‘y, Depar’rmen’r of Heahh, D.K.$. Bhawan, MinisTry, Raipur‘, CG. 2. The Reg sfrar/Elecfion Officer, ChhaTTisgarh Board of Ayurvedic and Unoni Systems of Medicine and Nafur'opafhy, Raipur‘ (CG) Present: mmni$ .......................‘ ..... .m2oo snésl W (W) ,lz' WWW‘§WW§R mmwma $ § ma accoun’r of any corrupf practice, or' other sufficiem‘ cause and may call on The elecfor‘afe 1'0 make a fresh elecfion. The appellanf has already filed represen‘rafion/objec‘rion againsf fhe illegal rejection of his hominafion paper in The above elec’rion before fhe STa’re Governmem‘ and fhaf is pending. In Tha‘r view of The mafer The appellant may be permi‘H'ed To withdraw This appeal wiTh liberTy To prosecuTe his objecTion before respondenT No.1, who may furTher be direcTed To decide The objecTio of The appellanT in accordance wiTh law wiThouT being influenced b rejecTion of his peTiTion or wriT appeal Learned AddiTionaI Advoc Te General appearing for The STaTe submiTs ThaT he has no objecTio if The wriT appeal is disposed of in The aforesaid Terms. In view of The above, T e insTanT appeal is dismissed as wiThdrawn wiTh liberTy as praye for. We hope and TrusT ThaT The ’ ’ »/.4 STaTe GovernmenT shall conside and decide The objecTion of The appellanT expediTiously. v we?!“ ”’a ‘#._~.* ? ._‘V W3 5d]- ’ 5d]; l Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh ;. Dhirendra Mishra l Judge ‘Judge l