g? ’(iiaGE C§€JET @F €§HATE§S{‘AR}£ AT $ELASPUR WMT ¥ETETIGN (S) Nag 3654 offww VERSUS PETETEGNER : Smt Basaa D/o Hari, age 59 years Femanem Gangman FWD » Working Lmder S310. Na$ianaE Highway FWD Sub — Division Champa Distt — Ewj gii‘ Chamm (C.G.) RES}?0KBENTS : 1) Staie of Clmatiisgarh, Through SeeraiaEy, hibiic Works Dssptt. Mamraiaya, D‘KS. Bhawan # Raipw‘ (CG) 2) Sub Divisionai 0&3cer, Naiional Higzway E'WE) Sub — Divisiom Champa Digit — 3a13jg§? Champ'a (CG) WRIT 13E’1‘YTION U‘JWR AR TEC} ,E 226 OF THE CONST} 1 U x‘ ION OF INDEA. $§3agie Ewack z $0ngbie Justice Sm $atisla K. Awjhetri. Shri Ashok Vaishnav WM: Shri Sameer Sahu, Advocate for ihe getitiozler. Shri 'Y.S.Thakur, Govi. Advocate for the State/respoxadems. ewmx {Passed 0n 28th day of Juag 2007) Leameé: 601111533 appearmg f0? the petitioner as Wail as for 'ihe Staie/respenclems join‘dy submit that the facts of the present m? petition ate simiEai‘ to that of in WP. N0; 454/2005 (Ram Prasad Yaclav & Others vs. Sets ot‘CMlztttisgarh & (EtherS), which was allowed vide order oated 1m t‘ 3i‘}.91.2‘3§)’7. They further submit that the questiozi oftaw iovoived ts also m Li’le $8.336. in View of the above—stated submission made by tltae leameé counsel for the pazties, the writ petitioa is alloweo in termS of the oeder deted 04.612067 passeo b'y' this Court in WP. No. 454/2006 (Ram Presad Yaéav 3a Gthers Vs. State of ’Cmsattisgarh & Others}, sobject to veritlcatioo ofthe facts. No ortier as to costs. Sd/- i Satish K.Agnih0tri Judge