AMENDED PETITION ^ mi ISi ;li°i a R IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIQN (C1 N0. 2944 OF 2007 PETITIONER Sajawal Singh, Son of LateSuraj Sigh, aged about 51 years, Resident of Ward No.15, Guru Ghasidas Nagar, Housing Board (Jamul), Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). President of - Guru Ghasidas Nagar Prathmik Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Guru Ghasidas Nagar Housing Board (Jamul) BhJlai Durg (C.G.). RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Civl Supplies, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Sub . Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sub Division Durg DistrictDurg (C.G.). 3. The Food Controller, Office of the Collector (Food), Durg (C.G.). 4. Chetna Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh, Ward No.15 Ghasidas Nagar, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.). -<®s——a<]«iS^!^ . :n •y ssWRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI ETC. siit?r^?r h-i 3T[^( ^rHfqhi ^i^d y. 's^ •^ffqRra, •iixil'y'id, h'nwy i3ff^?r TT?^ w.r"^^^)^ ••y-'^ 200 HIHWI Wfl^ fN^sr' Sn^FWTWtrf^T SB: Hon'Me Shri Ulanindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 17-01-2011 Shri UUam Pandey, counsel fbr|the Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate forthe State/respondents No( None for respondent No.4, evei( Heard. At the very outset, learned submitted that there exists alternativd petitioner as provided under Clause-K has not been availed by the petitjon^r .Court Learned counsel for the petitiflner may be permitted to withdraw the in^t before the concerned authority. He directed ID consider the appeal on il^ regard to limitation and at the eartiest ration cards for tfie almost four years. Learned counsel for the petiti()ner petifon with liberty to ffle an appealas In case. such an appeal is filec) the designated appellate authority period of three months from the datel going into the question of limitation. Reserved the tiberty as prayed f( sh4ll ^l'^f^f'l 'RTO^ff ^ tS^ -Cf^SR •^; srfigif sn^i petifoner. Atlvocate General with Shri Arun Sao, Govt. [1to3. though served. jxiunsel for respondents No.1 to 3/State and efficacious remedy of appeal to the of the Control Order. 2004, but the same and the petitioner has approached this submitted that if that be so, then, he i^tant petition with liberty to file an appe^t ^irther submits that the authority may be own merits without raising objection with ^s the petitionsr has been deprived of 354 is permitted to wjthdraw the instant t>rovidedto him underthe Control Order. within a period of one montft from today, consider and decide the same witfiin a |oT receipt of a copy of this order, wrthout pr, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- M.M. Sbrivastava Judge ]vrs ^fe^ ^