vili THE HIGHCO&RT OF jyDICATUKE AT JABALPUR W.P. NO. ^SS1^ Qf gg Prakash Chandra Temre, aged about 34 years, S/o ManraJ Temre, R/o House.to. LIG 36, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur. Versus ondents -^—T. State of 'M.P., through Secretary, G.A.G. Vallabh Bhavan, Bhogal. ^^ ^«^^ 2- m •^arlasyiu-Jlexalo^inefl-t Authcrri-t-y-,—Bilaop-ttr, , -Tferough Ctri^--a&e.t-u±-ivc Offi^&¥-(--ArB-.-ft-., - j| ^^j-S^yOT.ft rwiow <S,l/la^. CisTtpK/ta^'O'n Blia^fi cm. -t^fiat^i{ ^SCOiwu.2<,^,c»t<!A A?un.^t}l>«^CSPlXonoAoM. &(4oWlt^(^''^ ^i WRIT PETITIOM UNCER AETIGLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ^^^ INDIA FOR WANT OF WRTT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI ETC. Ofi ABY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, BIRECTION OR ORDER.. ^.I-•-•?-' •-'^ s!^t^ »i—a l^,i? ^" -78 3T]^?[ W tti-ii'* WiT 3'RW *t|l<» '^Sf -^IWW^, ^tll'H'IS, fs|<yliylj,< ..Ul.^.... ..:.2:s^/^ 3T[^[ 'q5R7 ('yf^^I) TOilW ^lfS^I 3IK?I SB: H<Mi'ble Shti Manindra Wohaa Shrivastava. J. 16.6.2010 coudsel Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, Mr. V.V.S. MuAty, Dy. Panel Lawyer for the State/rc^ Mrs. Hamida No.2/ Corporation. Heard. This petition has been| direction for consideration ol Lower Division Clerk. fbe c^unsel It is not ia dispute Bflaspur Development Aufho^ty and UabiUties transferred to stated at the bar by leamed aad ofher employees of B.D.At Corporation, BUaspur. In thi^ the petitioner submits respondent/Corporation to L.D.C. fhbt On fhe ofber hand, No.2/Corporation submits fhi ttilllcffl-l •qTO?tf •? fBi^t ^PE?R ^rsifinaii^r for the petitioner. Advocate Gencral wlth Ms. Sunita Jain, ipondentNo.l. iiddiqiu, counsel for respcHident filed by fhe petitioner for issuaace of hfa case for proniotion to the post of piat during pendency of thte petition, (B.D.A) stood dissolved aad its assete Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. It M for both the parties fhat petitioner have been teausferred to the Municipal changed situatton, leamed counscl for a direction may be issued to him for promotion to the post of colnsider leamed counsel for fhe respondent t on the basis ofpleadings contained ia •i'"~v, !^t. "XI-HC—78 "TST "4i*iici<4, ©tTl'y'Ko,fsidK-iy ^, sn^?i Tr^7 ('^fyi^T) sn^iw K;-ii+ ^^TT 3TT^?T sft^tcft T^ITWtrftct ai^I -2. I! Rraveen the pctition, petitioner is not Muidcipail Corporation. Be tfaat as it may, it would| respondent/Corporation for any| approach beii^ inade, respondei plight of the petitk>ner and ded|de wlthin reasonable time. off. ct)l<lfci<ftri iTPET?ff ^^^t <{^^\< i; aifpn aii^i ^ntitled to any relief as agaiast fhc be open for the petitwner to appioach such claim for proiaotion. Oa such it/Corporatlon shall duly consider fh.e the same in accoidance wlfh law, With the aforesaid observ^tions, petition stand findly dfeposed Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge