PETlTiGNER RESPONDENTS Smt Suiochana Yadav Wio Shri Santram Yadav aged 26 yea s Caste Rout Ria vmage Dhangardlpa Taksn 8; Dist Raigarh. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, thmugh Saws-wry! Dep of Hea't and “array V‘Jei‘are, Mantralaya DKS Bhawan RaipuHCG) Coi‘ector Rasgarh Chief Medica! & Heakh Gfflcer, Raigam. ,. Bleck Medical Officer Primary Health Centre Lolng, D35t Rargark Dr A M Gupta Slo Late Sh:;,'FC Gupta 0ccupatwr‘ Govt SeKnce M S (Surgean) Rio Near Samieshwen Mandu' NayaganL Ramarh (We: pe*mon under Amde 2261227 of the Corstrtutron of indie) Srnale Bench Hon b‘e Shrr Satrsh K Agnrhotn J Present :- Shri Vivek Sharma Panei Lawyer for the otate Shri BD. Guru counsei for the respondent No 5 $hn Rajeev Shnvastava anei 5hr: S. Rathod, counsei for the petmorier (Passed on this 20‘“ day or July, 2009) Heard leamed caunsel for the pames. '2. Earlier the petitioner has filed a civil suit seeking fer the same relief, which has been soughi for in this writ petition! before the Ceurt of District Judge, Raigarh. The Additienal District Judge, Raigarh, by order dated 11-1 6—2001 (Annexure —- P15) dismissed the civil suEt. The petitionerhas not preferred any appeal or not takeri the matter to any other forum as permissible under the provisions of law Thus the order dated 11 10-2001 whe em the same relief was sought from the cwrt Court has attained fmalrtyL‘The present writ seeking for the same relief is not maintainabie, as once the civil suit was dismissed, the petitioner ought to have taken recourse to the appellate authority, Even otherwise, this writ ' oetition is aiso not challenging the order dated 11-1 0-2061 passed by the Additional District Judge Raigarh in View of foregorng, the writ petition is liableM, , i sols ORDER {ORAL} , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASF’UR WRIT PETITEON NO. 230 OF 2002 dismissed as not malntainable. No order asto costs - y t, 3,,