\I_- S.B: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Fritim er Diwaker G3-0§-2I‘169: Mr. Somkant Verma, coun 5e! for the petitionei. P n Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, ei Lawyer for the State. Counsel for the petitioner ubmite that according i0 the petitioner his case is squarely covered with th decision of this Court passed in WP. (S) No. 625772008 {Saiil Kant Sing Vs. $tate of CG. & others}. He wither submits that in the iight of the ju 9ment of this Court, he may be permitteoi to withdrawn the present petition th iiberty to fiie a detaiied representation before the respondent No. 2 an the same may be directed to be decided expeditiously. Counsei for the responde ts/State submits that at this stage he can not make any statement as to w ether the case of the petitioner is covered with the order passed in afore entioned identical writ petition or not. However, he submits that if the petitioner makes a reptesentation to the authority concerned, the same s ali be decided strictiy in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition dismissed as withdrawn with iiberty as aforesaid. if the petitioner m kes a representation to the authority concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy-of this order, the same is expecte to be decided within a further period of three months from the date of its ceipt. Pritinker Diwakeri Judge i i