3w§¥amem a?? N THE HIGH CQURT F (TISGARH UDICATURE AT ’zgir ‘ REVIEW PETITION N0. L7f /200 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3443/2004 Onkareshwar Das Mauikpm'i, nikpur hasamund yl INE mnistraton Maly Ri CG) ntraaa, apur (.. Secretary? . .K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay aipur, C. State ofMadhya Pradesh, lKOugh—Secrear — onservator o ores ane-a Chhigh. attsar Rg Offk, d, ane er Mahasamun . attsarh Chhig. nion of Ind U ia, rouh—Director eartment ofPersonneL Trainn , , EVIEW PETITION UNDER OwER MELE 1 READ WI ® 0 $ ? V I O SHHAT J CN i 9 w \ S/o- Late Ganesh Mai Aged about 26 years, R/o- Ward No. 4, Ma, Distt, Mahasammd, ETT OR {A k\\.€.‘i-v .kwwv wag? VERSUS : State of Chhattisgarh, RESPONDENTS ‘ Through- Secretary, Department 0f General Adii, Deptt of Forest, D a, R G. Tty, ‘ Deptt. of Forest, SecretariatBhopaL MP. C fFt, RgRipur, Production Division, Distt Mallasamund, Thg, Dp ig and Public Grievances, Lok Nayak Bhawan Khan Market New Delhi, R TH wy HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BKLASPUR wan. Mr. Juwce Prmmer mwaker} Revmw Peminn Na. N of 2099 \LW O R D E R gm Chamberi (09.10.2099) The appHcant has filed this appls'cation and prayed for review of the order dated 23.072009 paSsed by this Court in WP. No. 3443/2004. Order sought to be reviewed perused. The said order was passed with the consent of the petmoner and therefore question of rte revrew does not anse Accordmgw, the revrew petition Is dremrssed ‘ Sd/~ Pritinker Diwaker Judge dPPMCANT Onkareshwar Das Manikpuri. VERSUS REsPONQEN'm State of Chhattiegerh and others.