ax; F?) /§J;f 05/ g 2 RADJ S BRAN BE}? ORE ‘I‘hL MAE TR IBUI‘lf—i PR II‘JCI PL 53 T$TE ABMINISTmTXE .“I‘ JEXBisLPUR PIP OA No VEAE} /1999 1. APPLICANT Daya £3hanker Singh Age 54 years ExFbre$t Ranger 1. \ $/o Late Fihri Faujdar Singh, Ganga Nagar (Mangla Read} Bilaspur {MP} Vers us The EState of Madhya Pradesh H Through ’Theyrincipal Secretary Forest Department Vall'abh Bhawan BhOpai (MP? 2» The Adéiticnal Principal Chief Canservatpr of Fores£s Adminiatratian (Non Gazetted} Madhya Fradesh Satpura Bhawan Bhopal (MP) The $ecretary Public Service Commi5$i0n Madhya Pradesh 1n&ore (Mw The uivisional Fsrest Officer BilaSpur (MP) The Sub Divisicnal o£ficer (Forests) Superintendent Game Sanctua ry " AcMMA/Kwwh. BilaSpur (MP) APPLICATIQN UMBER SECTION 19(1) OF Tiii‘‘; i13MINISTR1-5TIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 \ P H CE '5 3§ V EW.W.W am m mm WW WIW¥R %7&?Wa11€¥1 S.B.: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. PRITINKER DIWAKER 07'-1 2-2010: the petitioner. the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner 5L bmits that during pendency of the present writ petition the petitioner has been acquitted by the High dated 31.08.2010 whereas his 1d of his conviction by the Trial fthe subsequent development, at )ermitted to withdraw the present representation before respondent direction to the said authority to in the light of the acquittal order Shri P. P. Sahu, counsel for Shri Sumesh Bajaj, G.A. for Court vide judgment and order removal was solely on the grou Court. He submits that in view 0‘ this stage the petitioner may be i petition with liberty to file a fresh No.1. However, he prays for a decide the case of the petitioner passed in favour of the petitioner. Counsel for the State has nc representation before the authority cc it in accordance with law. \ objection if the petitioner makes a .ncerned and the same is decided by mw.m.m am W €@ m WW WW $31Wa1ésr Accordingly, the petition is ¢ iismissed as withdrawn with liberty s aforesaid. However, if the peti expected from the competent accordance with law and in the iig Court. lt is made clear that this Cc on merits of the case and the auti to decide the representation of ti with Iaw. :ioner makes a representation, it is authority to decide the same in ht of the order passed by the High iurt has not expressed any opinion iority concerned would be at liberty 1e petitioner strictly in accordance Sd/- Pri'tinker Diwaker Judge a