® ^N02flc^oN.NO^O-28?a«Xt. I&HOFTH¥cOURTrEI&OA£TUS? SJngfe^gncff IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH REVIEW PETITION ^(0« 1 /<$0io) fARISING OUT OF W.P. fS) N0.3191/2010) 2^[\ APPLICANT : L / Respondents No.l to <^ .< ^' n^ .t(' ^'" ^•" ..•-' ...;^ ^' . NN ^-2. 3, ^ K^r-^w^' t 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Urban Administration & Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur (CG) Joint Director, Urban Administration & Development, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Regional Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Collector, Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENT NQ, /'Petitioner No.l 1. RESPONDENT N0.: 2. Respondent no.6 R.K. ShuklaS/o. Shri H.K. Shukla, aged about 47 years, Incharge Mukhya Nagar Palika Adhikari, Nagar Panchayat Keshkal, District Bastar (CG) The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Keshkal, District Bastar (CG) REVIEW PETITION FOK REVIEW/RE^_CA_LL/RE^ CONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED^05/07/2010 PAS^ED IN WRIT PETITION fS^ N0. 3191/2010, R.K. SHUKLA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND 5 OTHERS IN LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL N0^134/2009 TAMRESHWAR PRASAD UPADHYAY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND 4 OTHERS ~^^ "Ml^iO^, ^rflWR', [®|(rll-)-iy ^LA/, ^^-^/1^\ ^. *IIH^ir Sh^(c?» ••^200 ^Tr^?T Tra^ (^?^^) ^II^T ^T f^ri^ TCT sn^? ^»HW Tumane ^CTW^^ 5TS^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan St 18-07-2011 Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Govt. A Learned State counsel submits t|at in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in WritAppeal No.13 order passed by this Court on 05-07-201 Vide order dated 05-07-2010; ti order shall not be given effect to for a p already been expired. Therefore, the infructuous. However, the applicants wo in case, eventuatity so arises in any d and the applicants herein. Reserving the liberty as prayed off. ^Rfepfrr ^m^r ^r fe^ TN^K '^'^tipW^H^T rivastava, J. ^lvocate for the applicants/State. ^ of 2009 decided on 20-08-2009, 10 needs reconsideration. |is Court held that the impugned feriod of two years, that period has review petition itself is rendered uld be at liberty to raise the issue, spute between the writ petitioner :or, the petition is finally disposed Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge •^^i^^^ q^rn^, ^^.Tr^rra— FS/140—2/20 ? I -l ,50,000.