HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ PetitionJg?) Ne.1 35 of 2009 Petitioners (Applicants) Respondents 1. Ganga Bai, aged about 6O years, widow cf Late Lai Tumradhwaj. 2. Nilawar Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Iate La! Tumradhwaj Singh. 3. Jagdish Singh, aged about 40 years, son a? Late La! Tumradhwaj Singh. 4. Nonka Bai, aged about 5O years, daughter of Late Lai Tumradhwaj Singh. 5i 0m Narayan, aged about 35 years, son of Late Lai Tumradhwaj Singh. 6. Meshial Singh, aged about 70 years, son of Raghunandan Singh. 7. Hoiendra Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Lai Singh 8. Yuvraj Singh, aged about 50 years, son cf Lal Singh. / Petitioners No. 1 to 6 ail residents of Village Thakurtola, Post Thakurtola, Tehsil Chhuikhakdaan, District Rajnandgaon (CG) & Petitioners No. 7 and 8 are ‘ residents of village Banwahantoia, Tehsii Kawerdha, District Kabirdhem (CG). Versus 1) Collector, kabirdham (Kawardha). 2) The Sub Divisional Oflicer, Kawardha, Kabirdham. Pradeep, son of Hirji Bhai. yiHo, son or Hirji eai. Yukta Gourl, widow of Hirji Bhai. o) Mukesh, son of Late Hirji. Surendra, son of Late Hirji. 8) Sunil, son of Late Hirji. 9) Prakash, son of Late Hirji. All by caste — Gujarati, resident of behind Satyanarayan Dharamshala, Rajnandgaon (CG). . ,r @1 10) Amriyabai, wife of Ghoorteli, resident of Koiiari. 11} Bahal Sahu, son of Mannu Sahu. 12) Jahar Sahu, son of Mannu Sahu. 13) Sakharam, son of Mannu Sahu. 14) Sarju, son of Mannu Sahu. 15) Aajuram, son of Mannu Sahu. No. 10 -15 are residents of village Peepratolabade. Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India) V SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihoti, J. Present: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate with Ms. A5. Sisodiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 15‘“ day of January, 2009) By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order dated 2-1—2009 (Annexure P11), whereby the Sub Divisional Officen Kawardha, has fixed the caee for considering the issue asto whether ‘Rajgonci’ is a Scheduled Tribe or not. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this issue has already been decided as preliminary issue, wherein it was held by order dated 3-1-2007 that ‘Rajgond’ is a member of Scheduled Tribe Community. 2) Be that as it may, since the case has been fixed for hearing all the issues, the petitioners/caribraise this issue before the Sub Divisional Omcer and the Sub Divisional Officer, is expected to pass an order after having considered all the objections raised by the petitioners as well as the other parties, in accordance with law. 3) ln view of the foregoing, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.’ Consequently, l.A.No.1 also stands disposed of. ’\-, ‘i Sd/ ‘i Satish K. Agnihotri ii i Judge ‘i Raju