^' DIVISION BENCH <.^ HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA. J. Rishi Raj Singh, S/o Late Murii Singh, aged about 43 years, R/o Flat No. 6, C/o Shyamlal Malik, Advocate, Ravishankar Shukla Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Environment Board, through Its Chhattisgarh, Conservation Sscretary 2. Chairman, Cnhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Raipur (C.G.) Respondents 1 to 3 having their offlce at 1, Tilak Nagar, Shiy Mandir Chowk, Awanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Regional Officer, Regional Office Chhattisgarh Environment, Conservation Board, Near Tehsil Office, Rampur, Korba (C.G.) 5. Secretary, Department of Environment, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur 6. The Collector, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 7. M.P. Pollution Control Board, through its Member Secretary, E-5, Paryavaran Parisar, Arera Coiony, Bhopal (M.P.) ..-•^""'.'•'; ii' :f '- Memorandum ofWritADpeal underSection 2 of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division BenchJ Act, 2006 <.^; Shri Utkarsh Verma, learned counsel forthe appellant. Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 5 & 6. ORDER The following Order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel forthe partiesare heard on admission. 2. Appellant Rishi Raj Singh has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 06-12-2008, passed in W.P.(S)No. 6842/2008. 3. Appellant/ petitioner Rishi Raj Singh filed the writ petition forthefollowing reliefs: "(i) To direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under the scheme of regularization w.e.f. 07-07-1994 framed by them and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time. (ii) To direct conferral of all consequential benefits. (ili) Any other relief as may be deemed frt in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. (iv) To grant cost. 4. The petitioner, thus, in substance was seeking his regularization in service. /r '"'^. ^ B S I; :• -! 5. Learned Singh Judge finding that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition for the same relief of his regularization which came to be dismissed on merits vide order dated 02-08-2006 passed in W.P. No. 2003/2003; the order passed in the writ petition was affirmed inWrit Appeal No. 25/2006 vide order dated 06-02-2008; the 'Special Leave Petition' filed by the petitioner against those orders was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 12-05-2008, passed in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11374/2008, dismissed the appeltant's writ petition. 6. Shri Utkarsh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in not /; giving due weight to the fact that the petitioner in the present writ petition was seeking regularization on the basis of the information obtained by him under 'Right to Information Act'. 7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner in both the writ petitions was seeking his regularization inservice; the petitioner's earlier writ petition was dismissed on merits in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka & Others Vs. Umadevi {(3) and others reported in {(206S) 4 SCC 1)}; the dismissal of the appellant's eariier writ petitioh was affirmed in writ appeal; the dismissai of the appellant's writ petition and writ appeal was affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the appeilant's 'Special Leave Petition' vide orderdated 12-05-2008. i fc 8. We, therefore, do not flnd any infirmity in the impugned order. 9. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice nimCTi Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge T—U