X ,: \ \ ('- ^ IN THE HIGH COURTLOFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) W.P. No. !3^^/06 S.B. PETIIONERS .--"^ K--' •^•"/<y""..- ^^ .'y^'/^-' >.-"',.A;> o^ ^^^ ^<e>-"' s^y s \1 / ^> 4, ^<& ^6' '<?' /s^' ^ o0s 1) Chandrabhan Nishad S/o Krishna Nishad, Aged about- 20 years R/o Village Bhairamgarh, Dewangan Para, Distt- South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 2) Lavkush Patel S/o Ramakant Aged about 19 years R/o Village-bhairanigarh sanjay Para, 3) Manoj Kumar samrath S/o Anantram Sararath Aged about - 22 years R/o Sanjay para Bhairamgarh 4) Budhram S/o Gutta Aged about 21 years, R/o Bajarpara, 5) Suresh Kumar Pondee S/o Pondee Dasru Aged about- 23 years R/o Kutru 6) Bhavesh Kumar Korsa S/o Suklu Korsa Aged about 2 1 years R/o Bardela ^ 7) Vinod kumar Anka s/o Baji rao Anka Aged about 23 years R/o Kutru, (Manga peta) 8) Rijwana Khan D/o Abdul Rashid khan Aged about 20 years R/o Bhairamgarh (Irrigation) 9) Smt Batti Oyam W/o Somlu ram Oyam Aged about 24 years R/o Bhairamgarh Sanjay para 10) Tulsi ram Alam s/o Dasraiya Alam Aged about 22 years R/o Kutru 11) Ramaram Kashyap S/o Jagguram Aged about 21 years R/o Bhairamgarh sanjaypara, All by occupation unemployeed youths and R/o Bhairaragarh Tah Bijapur, Distt-Dantewada South Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) ?> ^'"{-.QWMi'sS ,y%^s~£^^ ifW.,-,--. Nu^! ?(?/ fiPWHS^'^- State of Chhattistgarh Through :Secretary , PcLnchayat,Department D.K.S. Bha\van Shastri chowk Raipur.jC.G.) ^y^sfr^/ ^ 's€<"'eS<^ •^s'"-""-^: s^ss&^SS^^sSiSS^sssessS^'^ ?-«b 2) Collector Dantewada South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 3) Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bhairamgarh South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2^6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. \-^ ,1'<1 HIGH COXTRT OF JUDICATURE CHHAmSGARH: BILASPUR Sinj^e Bench: Hoa'ble Shrl Satish K. Agaihotri, J. W. P. No. 1377 OF 2006 Petitioners : Chandrabhan Nishad & Others Versus Respondents : State of C. G. & Ofhers Shri Abhay Kumar Tiwari, coiinsel for fhe petitioners. Shri Sunil Otwaai, panel lawyer for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (27tt March, 2006) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners, subinits on instruction, that the petitioners wauts to take appropriate reinedy, as such the petitioners be permitted to wifhdraw wifh the above-slated Uberty. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disiuissed as withdrawn with the above-stated Uberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge