•^ •^ « IN_THEIHI!3HCOI.JRTC)F: PETITlQNiER WRITPETirJIOKl 'c^;?<'\d0' t!';-iZ;."'-K'~1 NOi, Dii|iSsh Kyrnar Jainyna ahQiiit : Village DistFict 30 VERSUiS RESPffilfflffiTS »1. ^:!'l:;@|f° 'TMrfltugh years, | Resielent of Nimdha, Tahsil Marwahi, Bilaspi.it- (C.G.).:' ' • ,f • ' •< -•. • '<• '~ ^' . dt'S ^^s^^"^ jaiFtpaa ThriEiugh te'^|tL.AJ|UR:.(Gl.G.) )•;! 1.' •••:- !-)' ))•-:• • " •• .•""U alS/0 Prasad Agrawal Shri '/V.' aged Gfil&ttisk arK; Se i:retary, |D^artl^p::oJtS(:|(|6l.Ed^c§lion|, Wailtralaya, •iiD.KSS. Bhawan: RaJ[:<ur.{G,G.). ,: ...•:::.;.,::; .1' ' ;; •^ PanchayaE ,MarwaMi, Th6! Chief Executive Officer, Marwahi, District BilasRur cci(s.). j ^^. :Th||:tiftG|Ii|ioriaj|j-':Co|lect6^r, ROa|t:,i,Bi| :lrhiel'iC)Jst:|iet'^:|Edi.i^ltion ri!ct'Bi:lais^r.(G.@.^ Pendra EducatiOnDisti-ictBil!aspurii((2.G,0; Officer, WRITPETITION UNDERARTIGLE 2Z6/227 OFTHE GQNSriTUTION OF INDIA, 1950 FOR ISSU^NGSE QR AffRIT IN THE NAT-ORE OF ORiARI. MANiDAMUS EKE. DER/)G(R©ERS,i3IRE(ST"I<i>Ma<M|B@imiC(N§. i»5^' 1. RAUGULARS QF 11 @iREiMa<3NIE : Asi.iper •the;,cause tre(eg^r|'' 2. Bi^R1"ICUIARSORilBE;RElRONB ^F'BRElRRLffE ® Asipertfte causeB r' ^••••f^f:'^ '.:~.':f ¥' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5421 of 2005 Petitiorier Dinesh Kumar Agrawal Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8s others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hon'bleShri Satish I{. Agnihotri J.) Shri P. P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriN. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. O RDERIorall ( Passed on this 9th day ofMarch, 2010 ) 1. 2. 3. Thalmr Heard. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits fhat in view ofthe avermenfs made by the respondents/State in para 6 ofthe return filed in W.P. No. 5414/2005 (Vinod Kumar Rai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8s ofhers), the relief sought for in this writ petition has already been granted. Thus, nothing reraains for adjudication. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State does hot controvert the above submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order asto costs. r-„.. / Satish K. Agnihbtri Judge