INTHEHIGHCOURTOFCHHAmSGARHATBILASPURfC.G.') WRrTPETItION NQ.-SIAS'9-/2005 -iili!"'l"'n'nr PETITIONER ^^j^M^^ .rtV^^g-*' ^/''' ^i^-" ^^"'•:-'./ ;%?"' • ::1 '^!"'' ^•^ ESPONDENTS ^^ .^^Wiii^.' -^^i^ ^w:^'^:"^':"; /^ Ranjana Rai D/o pfSllri Gh^ndraShekhiar Rai, aged-abbut 331 ^la'irsi, Risiderit of Village [tti- Bajrgarga^, || Postj { Bhaijridand, !'ta|i|i:l;llHajwallJ, • D|i|^rict' BJlaspur !:(C-N.'!':?:; •:il1 VERSUS .;:i,:l::lir..'ji.. : .!: ': .; 1. Sfate of Ghhattisgarh, Through: Ihe SecretarY, Department of Panchayat, Ma(jj::ral.a|ya, ; D.K.S. Bhawan t* i. »fri?-ii1;'.;^jfl1' ^Raiippr^fS.p.).^ ,J:aEi|:>a|d;<;,K.j;Pari|haYa]l::, :;1 Marwahi,, Thl-ough: 1 T'He] CMi|f Executive -1:[:EI;:.' : l.. :.: :1:; Officer, MarwSllii Eistrict Bilaspur :<C.G.).,FI':'f:1. 1,!:^1^ 3. THe| AdditiQnal Collector, Peridra Road, DtStrict BilaspHr(C.G.), The Di^trict iEducation Officer, |:i:cl|t!JiJiTiJ3iist|[iiet;:Biispur^C.G.:),1 fi ;5. »llt^,l..^1j ''I'h|{i;|.l2|jg||:.P3|i<::hi\|at^;.,:'|ilaspur, ^FFhi-^u||h^,J'T'he|^:C:hfi^f;::E^ecutive: iOfficer, | Zila 1%hctn^yat Bilaspur (C:<S.). ViSSS WRIT PETITION UNDER AI:^'IC:LE'22iS^2t©F'THEe®NST'ITUTION OF INDIA. 1950 FOR ISSL)iS E ®K\1^^ CERTIQRMI;^ • 'MANIDXMVg,?''--iTCS..'Ii;a:A^EtSi^:.:E©K'.:;^ ORDER/©RDERS.iDIREGTIC3l^l]ffl @@SB(MSlS HIGH COURT OPGHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR WritPetitioa No. 5457 of2005 Petitioner Raajana Rai Versus Respondents Stote of CUiattisgarh & ofhers (Writ Petitiou underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitutton oflndi^ (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgiuhotriJ.) Shri P. P. Sahu, Advocate for the pctitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondcnts/State. OR^ERtorall ( Passed on thte 9d»day ofMarch, 2010) 1. 2. 3. Heard. Learned coimsel appearing for fhe petitioiier submits that in vicw of fhe avennents made by ttie respondents/State in para 6 offhe retum filed m W.P. No.5414/2005 (Vinod Kumar Ral Vs. State ofChhattisgarh & others), the relief soug^tit forin fhiswrit petition has already been graated. .Thus, aofhtag remaias for adjudication. Leaaaed coims&l appearmg for fhe respondents/Stete does aot controvert fhe above subinission inade by leamed couasel appearuig for the petitioner. Accordiagfy, the writ petition is dismissed as having become mfinctuous. No order asto costs. SdA.;. ?. SatishK.Agnihotri re Thaicur