CW IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / Writ Petition No. .\{H.%W{w2oo3 PETITIONE/R RESPONDENTS Radheshyam Shanna, S/o'Late Shri Paramlal Sharma ,/Aged about 44 years, Occupation Sub Engineer, Office of Maniyari Division Mungeli R/o Dham Muhalla, Panna (M.P.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh. Through : Chief Secretary, Water Resources Deptt. D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The State of M.P. Through : Secretary, General Administrative Deptt. State Re. Organization Cell Mantralaya, Vallabha Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.) Union of India, Through : Secretary Karmik Lok Shikayat & Pension, Mantralaya, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Delhi WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227‘OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f; If M rk f KLECQ? (waQi W wa /L/&g/a§1 m WW WW $Wané§1 9/5/2003 Petmoners through their I‘eSpectivc counsel. State by Shm‘ Ayaz Naved, G'Qvt. Advocate. (bunsel for Union cf India Shri Pankaj Shrivastava is also present. Shri V.K‘ Tankha, Advocate General} for the Stato of MP Heard.- Counsei for the pe titioners submiL that they have supplied the copies of the petitions with annexures to the counsel for the State of Oil/MP. and the Union of Indian }"1(m'L:V(:1‘, one extra copy be supplied and the acknmviedgoinems be obtained. - Counsoi for the pctitiouers submit that these n‘xaum‘s are Squarely covered bV the dm‘jsion of this Court in WP. l \ No‘2353/Ug«(Mallesh K111 lai‘ Tiwari vs. Union of India and ;.‘ \ \\ \\\others) decided on 28/4/ 2003. They pray that the similar _\\/\/ \\ [dew Xl-HC-22 orders may be passed in these cases also as they are similar. It is slated thal, th6 state v€rif1_cation. It is not dispL Accordingly, relying 1e instructions received from the petitioners as stated, the observations as made in and others) decided on 28/4/2003 subject to the modification that the petitioners, if so desire, may make a detailed I‘epnesei’itation raising their grievances alongwith The documents Cenn‘ai Govermnem addr Delmmtnenl of Personal a Public Grievances and P< Market. New Delhi (State \ the reiureseiltation duly Si \ \ served on the concerned D ment is-made at the Ba1 after due lted. for the petitioners on tl' bn the statement made by counsel petitions are disposed of with the W.P. No.2353/02 (Mahesh Kumar . Tiwari vs‘ Union of ludia within ten clays from today to the essed to the Government of India, nd Trainii’ig, Ministry of Personal.’ *nsions. Loknavak Bhawan, Khan Reorganisation Cell). Same copy of ‘ J ipported by all documents be also eparnnents of both the States after mew} w p /’#&g/@ 200 mm fg€tW $a1fmm obtaining the acknowledg forward the same to tl' comments and the requis till 30th June,2003, i1 Government to decide th Central Government to s the State Governments a from the Central Govern supply the same expedit being made, the Centre decide the same till appropriate orders In View of the abt disposed of. of the ord< placed in meet: files also. Certi‘lled copv as pe1 A (:0p_\ ement and the both the States may Le Centfal Government with their ite information and complete details i order to enable the Central e representation. It is open to the eek such further information from nd on such requisition being made ment; the State Governments will lously. On such a representation l Government may consider and 3 13‘ July,2003 or so, by passing we, M.W.P 85 llA., if anv, stand r passed in W,P.. No.2353/Oé‘ be Sdl- Fakhruddin Judge ’r l t r I r,iw rules. [niaw