$31— 78 ®§\ WWWW 'mzoo? ’wmm WW aim-m (We) mmm SB : HO‘WELE $E—IRF QU$TI€E E 02.09.2QQ9 $nri Basant Kaiwaltya, cc Shri Prayesn Das, CnAffCn‘ At the Cutset, WW§W *Wm 'RETE‘IKER DEWAKER the State. counsel for ‘unsek fdr the Dagitioner. to withdraw this petition with if: the petitioner submits that he Wants authority concerned. He aiso i56€ks a direction to the concemed authority for deciding the repres date as according to him, case with the order passed by this Co Bharadwaj V. Municipal Corpor 2006 MPJR CG 96. State counsel submits tht statement before this Court as covered with the order passed However, he submits that if the the concerned respondent, accordance with Iawi Accordinoly the petition it the petit Libert§ as aioresat i concerned respondent Wtthin a g receipt of copy of this order, the: a further period of two months from the date oi" its receipt. It is made clear that thi< me “its of the case and the autho ities concerned are free to decide the Detitioner s )er’ty to make a representation to the entation of the petitioner at an early of the petitioner is squarely covered art in the matter of Yashwant Kumar ation, Durg and another reported in it at this stage he cannot make any to Whether case of the petitioner is .n the aforementioned writ petition. the petitioner makes a representation to same shah be decided strictly in Ls dismissed as Withdrawn with the o the eriod of one month trom the date of ame is expected to be decided Within oner makes a eoresentauoi representation of/e rictly in accordance With PC) Lag / / //r/ Court has not commented on the W