fr w^'" ^^•-^" n.?;1i5f;IU Hi-^wU t^?r<rs PETITIONER -^c/y/ ./ ^M^ <^.^y ,^" A'?.-' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATEISGASH A'E_BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0. ^03 /200'7 / Shankar Jaiswal s©nofRam Narayan Jaiswal, aged about 60years, ge Lalpur, .; RESPONDENTS 1 Distt. Ranclu, Jharkhand Through Power pf attomey holder Pradeep Kumar Jaiswal, son ef Ganesh ]3rasad. Jaiswal, aged abput 3 1 years, gresently resding st Ram.anujganj, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Ch&attisgarh, through the Secretary, Departcnent of UEban, and Bt, D.K.S. BIiaw^an, Raipur The Ghlef Municipal OffiGer, Nagar Eanchayat Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja (CB) ^^ /4. Syb Divisional Of&cer, (Nazul), RaDianujganj, Distt. Surguja [CG] Talisild.ar, Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja {igRftgiasgaSi) / / 5. jSxecutivs Engiheer, Qepartuient of Public Wsfks, RaBiaaujganj, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) WBI'E-PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CQNSTITUTIQN QF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (C) No. 203 of2007 PETITIONER : Kripa Shankar Jaiswal. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh&Ofhers. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotsl, J. Present: Shri A-N.Pandey, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1, 3 to 5. Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate forthe respondent No. 2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 08nday of July, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to fhe impugned notice dated 12.05.2006 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner has filed his reply thereto. Despite fhe reply, no order has beeii passed by flie respondent No. 2 i.e. Nagar Panchayat, Ramanujganj. 2. Shri Dubey, leamed counsel appeaiing for the respondent No. 2 submits fhat ifno order has been passed after filing ofthe reply by the petitioner, * the same shall be done as early as possible, preferably within a period of fhree weeks fi-om today. He further submits that no farther action shall be taken against the petitioner till reply filed by the petitioner to the notice dated 12.05.2006, is considered and decided finally. 3. In view ofthe foregoing, according to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication. 4. Consequently, the -wTit petition is disposed of. -" Sd/- SatishK-Agnihotn ]udge Amit