/ l»assy.i ^'3 tj IN THE HON'BLE HIfiH COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR IC.6.) PETCTIONER RESPONDENTS ,^ ^^ ^^A y^' ^' W.P. f5)No.(2>33^ /2Q11 Ku. Raina Baghfll D/o Late Kailish Baghdl , aged about 25 years, R/o Village- 6hat Longha, Tahsil Jadalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.6.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. ^ The Chief Conservator officer Aranaya Bhawan Distt. Raipur ^ (c-6-) 3. The, Forest Conservator, Jagdalpur, (C.G.) 4. The,Forestofficer, Dantewada forest division, Dandewada. (C.6.) WRTT PETTTION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE coNsrrruTioN OF INDIA i • ! 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETTrrONEMS) :- As per cduse title. 2. PARTECULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS :- As per cause title. ,]ii?1-^ '"<<<„. ,fj!^^ 'X f _ ^ -..-*?'®c^ 1^ 1 ^i,^ '"y^//^ '' tfeh. ^ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAHH AT BIS-ASPIJR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKBR DIWAKER RESPONDBNTS W.P.ISt.NO. 6332/2011 Ku. Raiaa B^hel versus State ofC.G, & Others Sbri Ashok Patil, counsel for the petitioner. ShriA.V.Shridhar, P.1. forfhe State/respoudents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB <X>NSTITUTIQN OF INDIA ORDER (21.10.2011) Counsel for the petitioner subinits that father of fhe petitioner late Shri Kailash B^hel was employee of forest departinent who died in hamess on 05.07.05 but till date the petitioner has not been given conipassionate appoiatinent. He further subuiits that the viUs^e where ftie petitioner is residiag is ia fhe iaterior, severely affected by BLaxalites and therefore it is dtfficult for her to approach the authorities. State counsel points out fhat fireni the pleadiags it is not clear that the petitioner has evcr approached the aufhorities seekiaj conipassionate appoiataient. At this state, counsel for the petitioner subiuits that he laay be permitted to withdraw fhis petition with liberty to approach the respondent N0.3 by filiag proper application. The present petition is disposed of with a direction to fhe petitioner to ffle proper application before the resp. No.3 withia a period of tiiree weeks froni today and in the eventuaUty of filing the same, it is expected fhat fhe same would be decided as expeditiously as possible, ih accordaace wifh law. It is inade clear fhat fhis Court has not expressed any opinion on laerits offtie case and the authorily concemed would be at liberty to decide fhe application offhe petitioner stnctly in accordance with la^. pritinkerDiwakar Judge