ii 'ws'Wi-n, iw ^ ^F(voL- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION fS1 N0. ^S9CT OF 2006 PETITIONER ^y> . ^^/ ^.s;%y y^w /.^ry Smt. Ranjit Kaur Wife of Shri Madan Singh, aged about 36 years, Resident of Imlipara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). •:^ ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 1. /3, / State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Commissioner, Women and Child Development, Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The Project Officer, Women and Child Development, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The District Programme Officer, Women and Child Development, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.); ^ 6. The Commissioner, Munidpal Corporation, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). /- 7. The In-charge Public Relation Officer, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 8. Smt. Monika Patel Wife of Shri Sanjay Patel, Resident of Near Timber Bhawan, Chopdapara, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION ETC. .< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0.5589 OF 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Ranjit Kaur Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others p/Vrit Pet'itioh under Article 226/227 of the Constitutionof India) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms. Neha Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govemment Advocate for th&State. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 1st day of April, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instNetions, seeks permjssion of this Court to withdrawthis petitipn withliberty to take recourse to other statutory forum, which may be avatlable under the proyisions of law. 2. Learned counsel appearing for otherside has no Qbjection. 3. Itisordered.asprayedfor. 4. Accordingly.the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above-stated tiberty. Certified copy of the impugned order may be retyrned back tQ the petitioner on retaining a photocopy ofthe same. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Ashok