lN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. ééa‘} OF 2009 (DB) CONTRACT MATTER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER fl/IIS First Mile Stone, D.C.F. Bilaspur, /’ Authorize representative Abdul ‘Akhtar S/o Abdul Bashir, aged about 30 years, Head office Charch Road,_Frezurpur, Jagadalpur, Present Address Om Nagar Jarhabhata, Bllaspur (Chhattisgarh) PETITIONER VERSUS K’s/tate ofChhattrsgarh through Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, ' Raipur(C.G.) The ' Collector, and District Project Coordinator, Nationai Rurai Employment Guarantee Scheme Chhattisgarh District — Bilaspur (C G) 3. The Zila Panchayat through : Chief Executive Officer Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) DETAILS OF THE PETITION RESPONDENTS PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS As mentioned above in the causetitle. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As stated in the above cause title. ‘ ,1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$6ARH AT BILA5PUR DIVI$ION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MIsHRA & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKARJJ Wrif Petition (c) No.6002/2009 (Pe‘mian under Ariick 226 of “the Came" of lndia) PETITIONER M/s Fir-51' Mile Stone, D.C.F. Bilaspur, Aufhorize. represenfafive Abdul Akhfar, 5/0 Abdu! Bashir', aged about 30 years, Head officer- Charch Road, ‘Frezdrpur, Jagdaipur, Present A&dress Om Nagw, Jarhabhafa. Bilaspur' (Chhaftisgarh) Vs RESPONDEN'TS 1. Sfafe of Chha‘h'isgarh, Through Secretary. Panchayaf & Rural Devebpmenf Deparfmenf, D.K.$. Bhawan, Manfralaya, Raipur' (6.6.) . 2.‘ The Coiiecfor, and bisfr-id Prajed‘ Cawdinmor, Nafional Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Chhattisgarh District Bilaspur- (C6) 3. The Zila Panchayat through Chief Executive Officer, Biiaspur- (Chhattisgarh) Present: Mr. Avinuix K Mishrn, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Bakshi. Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State. Mr. C. Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent No.2. o k A L o R o E a (97" February, 2010) 1. Heard. Z. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this ' \._ petition the respondents have already taken administrative decision whereby the dispute stands resolved. 3. In view of above submission; the instant petition is dismissed as having become Mr», infructuous. ’ ’l Sd/-‘ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra f’ ’* Judge Jadge