t^ ^ C-7-" /^zy ^ ^ '-••••^.^•i @- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.^ PETITIONER o ^.- ^^"A,O.J- --y-"n '/ 7 /aeei Vishweshwar Pandey, S/o. Shri Thakur Prasad Pandey, Aged about 39 years, R/o. Rewatpur, Post Dhandhapur, P.S. 85 Tahsil Rajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ,S'=''di«S ^?fc>;^ ^^i-sr" ""B^s'.s,,^ ^'^''^^ /"> '% 1 ,-°n^ ^^^ ^i. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat 85 Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur. 2. The Collector, District Surguja (C.G.) ,3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4. The Block Education Officer, Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) ,• 'pf'^^y' ' . , ^" - WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE C\sff CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILA8PUR Writ Petition fSl No. 671 of2009 Petitioner Vishweshwar Pandey Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petitiou imder Ardcle 226 ofthe Constitution ofludia) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Ashok Kumar Shiikla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondeuts No. 1, 2 & 4. ORDBR (Oralt (Passed on this 15i11 day of September, 2009) Heard. 1. Leamed counsel appeariag for the petitioner, on iastructions, subuiits fhat the petitiouer does not want to contest fhis petition on nierits, at this stage aad pray for wifhdrawal of this petitiou with liberty to pursue the representation dated 12.9.2008 (Amiexure P/7). However, it is further submitted that fhe concemed aufhority may be directed to consider and decide the same in accordaace with law within stipulated period. 2. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, leamed Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents/Stat submits that the pending represeutation, if any, inay be considered and decided by the concerued authority, iu accordance wifh ]aw, within a penod offour weeks fi-oin fhe date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. 3. Tliafcur In view of fhe foregoing, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above-stated Uberty. It is expected that the concemed authority would consider and decide the pending representation, if any, wifhia a period of four weeks finm the date of receipt of a copy of this order. —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge