Ti^'\ 1,! l;j r-i c-^ t^o 2 ^/£ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No l^l^ /2007 PETITIONER r..^ .^ry/ •^tyf A.^ /».--' / ...f^ ^' Ku. Ranula, Daughter of Late Udhav Sarthi, aged about 21 years, resident of Village Bhalumuda, Gram Panchayat Rodopali, Tahasil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). fv' .y ••-.y ;•''--' VERSUS RESPONDENTS T^^7^r ,-/ Smt. Gurwari wife of Shri Vinod Kuamr Patel, resident of Village Bhalumuda, Tahasil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). Project officer, Integrated Bal Vikas Pariyojana, Tamnar, Tahasil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Tamnar, Tahasil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). •The Secretary, Janpad Panchayat, Tamnar, Tahasil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). 5. Additional Collector, Raigarh, Disfa-ict Raigarh (C.G.). 6. State of Chhattisgarh, acting through Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS, DIRECTION/DIRECTIONSETC. ^^^•.*?R?ir^a^^rK^:.r-?^T'^"^j^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BVj\SPUR W.P.(S) No. 1216 of 2007 Peb'tioner Ku. Ramita Versus Respondente Smt. Guraari and others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Ju^jce Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri M. K. Sinha, Advocate for ttie petitionsr. Miss Deepa!) Pandey, Panel Lawyer for 8ie respondents. ORDER ( Passed on this 8th day of March, 2007) The following order of <he Court is passed by Satish K. Agnibotri, J. 1. The petifioner has filed ttus petition chaltenging the order dated 6.2J2007 ^nnexurs P/10), passed by tte Addifional Collector in Appeal No. 59/A- 89/2006-2(x37. 2. Learned counsel for ttie petifipner, on instruction, submte that that Uie petiBoner may be allowed to wlthdFaw this petition witt liberty to fite review against the impugned order dated 6^2007, before ttie Collector/Addifional Gollector, as according to ttie peWoner the name of the petifa'oner was very much in the voter list, which has been ignored. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents has no objwBon to ttie sbove submission. 4. In vtev/ of the above, this petition is accordingly dismissed as vwthdrawn wtth the aforestated liberty. The petitioner shall be at liberty to fite an application fw grant of stay, if so advissd. Consequently, M(VV)P No. 791C007 stands dismissed. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge a \