•c^ ^-z ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR eHHATriSGARH WRITWETITONfS) No. ^.^ Z^ZBU PETITIONEI^ /y/ sW. ^r RESPONDENTS ^ 1. Mitaram Jatwar, S/o MehtarSingh, aged about 36 years, R/o Korbi Dtiatura, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (C.G.) / 2. Ashok Kumar Baghel, S/o Shri Budhram Baghel, aged about 24 years, R/p Police Colony Saragaon, Tahsil Champa, Dtstrict Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) /3. Ku. Savita D/o Shri Ram Kushun, aged about 22 years, R/o Korbi Dhatura, Tatisil Pali, District Korba (C.G.) /"4. Smt. Rupanjali Singh, W/o Shri Anfl Singh, aged about 29 years, R/o Dongri, Tatisil Batoda, District 3anjgir- Champa (C.G.) ^5. Ku. Sudha Gadewat, D/o Bhaiya Lal Gadewal, aged about 28 years, R/o Jaratiabhata, Rajiv Gandhi Ctiowk, Bilaspur, Drstrict Biiaspur (C.G.) Versus /\. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretan^, Department of Panchayat and Rural Devetopment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manta-alaya, Mantrataya, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. Oirector, Directorate of Panchayat, Raipur (C.G.) / 3. Collertor, District Korba Y A. /; Btock Education Officer, Block Pali, District Korba (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pali, Dfstrict Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA E^E^:-^— "^ 1 OF CHHAI'IiyGARH A.I' B WRIT PETmON fS) No. 2372 of2011 Milai-am Jatwar & Othere. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofCKhattisgarh & Others. 3'rJ WRIT PETmON UNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTIONQF INDIA . Present: Shri Ravi Bhagat, Advocate for tlie petitioner. Sfari Sushii Dubev- Govenmient Advocate v»ithSliri N.N.Rov. Panel Lavi'\-er for the State/resoondent No. 1 to 4. Amit '-0.,^^ nn n'2I'd /•!nx- nfM-v '7(}1. 1 't J. <A^i3^-ut \Jit ^^r ^**AJ1 l^-L -^-'•<-t-Jf; A/Ui.J. At the ven' outset, leanied couiisel appearing fbr the parties submit that the issue invoived in tliis case is with regard to order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the CoUector, Korba, which came up for consideration before this Court iti Seema Dubev v. State of Chhiittssgcirh & Othsr comiected matters. This Court, after hearing all the parties, considered the issue and passed tlie order in Seema Diibey (siipra). This petitionmay also be disposed ofaccordingly. Thus, haviag regard to the facts sitiiation of the case, wherein the issue involved in Seenw Diibey ('supra) as well as ui this case are one and the same- the instaiit petition stands disposed of in the same temis and order passed in Seema Diibey (supra). ___.._- Sd/- K.Agi Judge W.F.t'S) No. 152Q/2011, dsddsd on 29.04.2011