k. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH SINGLE"BENCH PETITIONER APPLICANTS M.C.C. 1/4 / 2005 ^ Madan Lal Sahu, S/o Late Sliri Shayam Lal Sahu, Aged about 48 years, Presently working as Naib Tehasildar, in the Govermaent of Chliattisgarh, R/o Bagdehi para, Nawa para Rajim, District Raipur, C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^M ^ /'y ^>;/ ^'>^/ "<i^:/ ^SV!^f3%< CLBM ^ ^,-> ^ "Af ^^^y ^ -s^ THAKUR VUAY SINGH Asst. SotiCftor Gener^t of tndia CHHATTISGARH HISH C0% •t«»l ^.StateofCliliattisgarh Tlirough the Secretary, Department ofRevenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary /' GovemmentofChhattisgarh, Department ofGeneral Admimstration, Mantralaya, DK.S. Bhawan , Raipur (C.G.) 3. State of Madhya Pradesh '' Through the Secretary, Departinent ofGeneral * Adnumstration,VaIlabhBhawan, Bhopal, (M.P.) 4. Union oflndia, f:i Through the Secretary, Department ofPersonnel & Traimng, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Dellii .5. The Collector, District Dhamtari, Dhamtari, C.G. APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE 0RDER DATED 12704/2005 IN WRIT PETITION N0^4761 / 2004 . MADAN LAL SAHU VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS. ^ccF •r<{|'t|lcwr, tPTT}1<-l<l<?, Rc61^^ TFT^T^^T^ ..........^.^..^.^^....^^.^^QQ 3TT^?Tq^p (^ciijcl^) W^^T^TR^Jch ?:CT3n^^T^^4ic^ Barve S;R:?T^R^f^T3TT^5T 113-1-2006 Shri Satyendra Sahu, counse Shri Aiok Bakshi, Govt. Adw |and2. Heard both the counsel. Vide order dated 12-4-2005 with a direction that the petitioner s to respondent No2 within a perioe was directed to consider the repre^ decide the same within a period of tt Learned counse! for the authority is respondent No.1 and no| aiready made representation to the by learned counse! for the State. Therefore, respondent No.1 by the petltjoner within a pc points and grievances raised by the| With the direction aforesaid, Parties are for certiN /^ ^w' SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^ cpi^fc^4t;T^l^c^T^'fec5t <<R?ltdK ^3Tf^T3Tr^ST for the petitioner. cate for the State/respondents NoJ V\f.P. No.4761/2004 was disposed of jiouid make a detai!ed representation of two weeks and respondent No.2 tentation by the petjtioner and Iree months. ^etitioner submjtted that competent respondent No.2. The petitioner has ^espondent NoJ whlch is not disputed directed to decide the representation riod of 3 months consjdering all the Ipetitioner in accordance with law. he petition stands disposed of. d copy of this order. Sd/- ^.c. ado° judge