[..^y ^ >^^/^K ^ .^@ ^•"^" ..>" •^ $' ^y -^,....- ^ IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^i^. WPfS)Nor / 2009 PETITIONER : Badrmath Dhobi, S/o Chatur Singh Dhobi Aged about 24 years, R/o Village: Raajitpur, Tehsil- Sahapur-Lohara, District- Kabirdham (CG.) Versus RESPONDENTS ^l: StateofChhattisgarh,throughSecretary, Dejpartment ofPanchayat, D.K.S. Bhavan., Raipur ( CG.) ^ 2. Director, Panchayat, Departement of Paachayat, Raipur, (CG.) 3. ChiefExecutive officer, Jila Panchayat, Kabirdham, (CG.) 4. Deputy Director, Panchayat Department, District- Kabirdham, (CG.) 5. GhiefExecutive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Sahaspur'Lohara, District- Kabirdham (CG.) ^6. Collector, District- Kabirdham (CG.) L^7, Gram Paachayat- Raajitpur, through its Sarpanch, Tahsil- Shaspur-Lohara, District Kabirdham (CG.) ^ v.8. Mono] Dubey, S^ Dolesh Kumar Dubey, y i R/o Village Ranjitpur, Tehsil- Sahaspur-Lohara District- Kabirdham (CG.) 9. The Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue) 6 Kawardha, Digtrict- Kabirdham ( CG.) -^ v^^^-% ^, ' ^,^^^^ ^ ^ %v^^^ I'tX K>..>'. ^F ^ ICU' \^ :.r) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA 1 HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 6922 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Badrinath Dhobi State of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh and others Shri Rajnish Singh Baghel counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai PL forthe respondents 1, 2, 4 and 6. Shri Akhilesh Kumar counsel for respondent No.5 Shri B.Vijay counsel for respondent No.7 Shri Malay Shrivastava counsel for respondent No.8 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O RD E R (01.10.2010) Grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.9 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha has passed an order in his favour on 31.3.2008 yet the same has not been complied with till today. During the course of argument, it transpired that the order passed by the respondent No.9 was assailed before the Additional Collector who vide its order dated 31.5.2010 upheld the same. However, respondent No.8 herein preferred a revision against the order dated 31.5.2010 before the Commissioner, Raipur Division which is still pending andon 8.6.2010 stay has been granted in his favour. 2. In these circumstances counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file fresh petition if occasion arises. 3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed aswithdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge