t—l^ m aa^^fc'jffatsvf'f^^v- yva.'i ffiTITioB N0. lj°^t/OF ;1995. E6IITIQSER IN TH&-HIQH OOURT OF MABHYA PBAffiSH AT.JABAL Shra. Balayan Agrawal, . , ^ A^ed 40 years, S/o Laxffil SaTayan Agrawal, Ferest Gont.raritor, B&aiyathaa Boad, SBrajpur, Dist't. Sarguja (:M.P.:) - •W.fiStS - BESiONDENTS ; p 1» State of MadhyaJ'radesh tiaroagta; i.ts Secretary, Forest Depanaent, Valt-abh Bhawan, Bhopal. P, 2. ^M.P« Rajya Lagtaa Vanepaj tTradi.ng ~ 'S..' De'wel.opBient) SaBkart.S^ngb' Maryadi.t, Bhopal tfiroiagh i.ts. Ranagi.ng Di.rectort <?, 3^ Gsnssrvatorof Borestand_ I General Manager, Sarguja'Fbrest IJ -GLrcLe, AfabikaporCtt»P.) , '; : 1^4. ^di.ttoaal TabsU.dar(|Ebrest)etUB? Sab Olvi.si.oaal Barest Qfficex;';.'1 ^t,g^iay&^^&ikaiu^iM»,P.i^______ »tllf»l«i '.V tTicaia'tog awi 'SevslopKWBt^ :.|laayaelAt thtough' ifes Saae as gi.veni.n cuase ti.tl.e abowe, ^"-"]-A%. _2^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRLT PETITION N0.4044 OF 1995 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Shri Narayan Agrawal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Gowri (Writ Petition underArticle 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General forthe State. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate for the respondents No.2,3&5. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the very outset, Shri Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2, 3 & 5, submits that the respondents No.2, 3 & 5 may be granted opportunity to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of letters dated 31-5-1995 (Annexure - P/18), 26-6-1995 (Annexure - P/19) & 1-9-1995 (Annexure - P/20) afresh after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner tp putforward his case. 3. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the above and having regard to the fact that the matter is of 1995, the petitioner has no objection, if the case ofthe petitioner is considered afresh in the light of the above-stated letters as well as after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. In view of the above, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. -'; -1 Sd/- '.»- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 81;