I /' ' C^( //l// /2009 Manoj Parakh S/o Shri Meghram Parakh, Age about 40 years, R/o Shop No. 10, Adivasi Vikas Parisar, Chitrakut Road, Jagdalpur (C.G.) V 'y^-' .^/ A ./c?:/' ,.- ^i^y' c^.<^ ^ ^;€^' v //<^r// ^y/ •%// 1. State ofChhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Scheduled Caste, Seheduled Tribe and Bakward Class Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Secretary, ' MataRukamani Sewa Sansthan Samiti, Dimrapal, Tah. & District-Jagdalpur (C.G) iNlJNDERAKHCLES2260FraE CONSTTTUTION t? ^ ^ I?;.'i. .^?^ (^irt? !S>s;©' // n--' ^3>fn?-T;>t HIGH COURT Qf CHHATTISGARH AT_B1LASPU'R SB : HON'BLE SHR! JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKBR WA_(.SJJi0^473l^_2009 Manqj Paraxh Versus State of C.G. & Others WRIT PETITiOS UNDER ARTICLB_226 QF THE COiSSTITUTIOM OF Shri S.P.Kale, counsel for the petitionei Shri P.Das, G.A. for the State. (26.08.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the pai-ties, the iTiatter is heard finaliy. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that number of identicai petitions have been decided by this Court and one such case is W.P. No. 4108/2005 (Smt. A.LaU Vs. State of C.G. 85 Others). He submits that his case is squareiy covered with the abovementioned case and therefore at this stage he may be pemiitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file representation before respondent No.l. He however submits that direction may be issued for deciding his representation expectltiously. Counsel for the State submits that at this stage he cannot make any statement as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered with the order passed in aforeinentioned writ petition as relied upon by the petitioner. He further submits that if the petitioner will make a representation the saine wouid be decided in accordance with law after scratinizing the factual and legal position at' the case. Accordingly, the petitioii is dismissed as i.vithdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid. In the eventuality of uiing any such representation by the petitioner within a period of three weeks Irom the date of receipt of copy of this order, it is expected that the same would be decided within a further period oi' tf.'o months. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the respondent No.3 would be at liberty to decide the representation strictiy in accordance with law. Sdf- Pritinker Diwaker Judge